Sitting of 19 April 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Wednesday 3 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Care Standards Bill
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What representations he has received about the Care Standards Bill [Lords] in the last month. [118432]
    Ms Julie Morgan: What representations he has received about the Care Standards Bill [Lords] [118437]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In the context of the Care Standards Bill, I have received a number of representations relating to proposals for a children's commissioner for Wales. I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House today that the remit of the children's commissioner for Wales will extend to children coming within all the services to be regulated under the terms of the Care Standards Bill.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he list exactly those services that will be covered by the children's commissioner, and reassure us that the amendment will be drafted so as to give the National Assembly for Wales some powers to extend the role of the commissioner beyond that envisaged in the Bill?
    Mr. Murphy: As well as all children's homes, the commissioner will deal with services in private and voluntary hospitals, the welfare of children living away from home in boarding schools, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, local authority fostering and adoption services, welfare aspects of day care and child minding provision for the under-eights, residential family centres and children who receive special care in their own homes. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that my officials and Assembly officials are working together
    962
    to prepare the amendment to the Care Standards Bill. We are in close contact with the Assembly about any future remit.
    Ms Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he reassure me that he will work closely with the Health and Social Services Secretary, Jane Hutt, and the Secretary for Education and Children, Rosemary Butler, to ensure that the final legislative powers of the children's commissioner apply to all children in Wales and have as their foundation the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so that the powers extend beyond the powers provided in the Care Standards Bill?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes. The Assembly is still considering a wider role and remit. The Government will urgently and sympathetically consider proposals when they are ready, but I believe that the office of children's commissioner for Wales, set up as it will be under the Care Standards Bill and together with the additions and the work that the Assembly is doing, will mean that we are leading the United Kingdom and Europe in terms of such a role.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the answer from the Secretary of State, as far as it goes. Can he clarify what will be the position of children who live in their own homes and are on the at-risk register, but who may not be getting special provision? Will the legislation be broad enough to give the commissioner powers to deal with those children? If the Bill is not wide enough, what mechanism could be used to fast-track those additional powers, on which all parties agree?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he is interested in these matters. The Care Standards Bill will not cover the category of children that he mentioned, but the matter is under consideration by the Assembly, working together with my Department and others in London. We will try as fast as we can to ensure that we cover all the aspects of the role of the children's commissioner. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to look carefully at the protocol that governs arrangements between the Assembly and the House of Commons as far as legislation is concerned, and I hope to return to those issues after the recess.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the regulations that flow from the Bill be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?
    Mr. Murphy: That matter will be dealt with in Committee when the Care Standards Bill goes through its stages here.
    Mr. Alun Michael: In the light of the north Wales child abuse inquiry report and other matters, I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he will use the widest possible powers in the Care Standards Bill to develop the role of the commissioner. In the longer term, will he look to use other legislative opportunities, so that that role can develop to cover all matters that affect children and to ensure that the role is as comprehensive as possible?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I can give that assurance to my right hon. Friend, and it is good to see him in the

    963
    Chamber. As I have said to other hon. Members today, these matters are being considered carefully by the Assembly, by my Department and by the Department of Health. I believe that the points made by my right hon. Friend are relevant and will be considered in detail as the Care Standards Bill goes through the House.

    Farmers (Exchange Rate Compensation)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: When he last met the Minister of Agriculture to discuss compensation for farmers in Wales in relation to the high value of the pound. [118433]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I am in regular and close contact with colleagues in the Cabinet and we discuss a wide range of issues, including the agriculture situation. Compensation for farmers and the high value of sterling were among the matters addressed at the recent agriculture summit chaired by the Prime Minister on 30 March.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State agree that the single most important factor in the crisis in farming is the high value of the pound? When will he get the agreement of the Treasury to apply for monetary compensatory amounts to compensate British farmers, given that the pound is overvalued against the currencies of competitor countries in the European Union?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree that the value of the pound is vital, and that is why the agriculture summit chaired by the Prime Minister addressed the issue. Of the £25 million of aid that has been given to Welsh farmers, £6 million is to go to sheep farmers, £2 million to beef farmers, and more than £2 million to dairy farmers. All that is to deal with the problems caused by the strength of the pound and will directly help farmers in Wales.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The National Farmers Union in Wales has greatly welcomed the package for farmers and the Government's commitment to agriculture. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that only 2 per cent. of the lamb consumed by British armed forces abroad is sourced from Wales? Will he endeavour to persuade his ministerial colleagues to adopt the same policy that has been adopted for beef, and source all lamb thus consumed from the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Murphy: I shall certainly take up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I can tell my hon. Friend that our armed forces are keen to support British products wherever possible, and that all the beef and pork that they use is provided by UK producers. However, I shall ensure that I raise the question of lamb with my Cabinet colleague.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) is this afternoon attending the installation of the high sheriff of Powys, but he and I would both like to know the answer to this question: when and how will the exchange rate compensation be paid to dairy farmers in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: Obviously, the details of that are a matter for the National Assembly, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as they are known.

    Housing Green Paper
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What discussions he has had with Assembly Secretaries concerning the implications of the housing Green Paper in Wales. [118434]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I discussed the housing Green Paper with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government and Housing, Mr. Peter Law, in our liaison meeting on 10 April.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in many parts of Wales, such as the wards of Cathays, Plasnewydd and Roath in my constituency, and the constituency of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, there are extremely high densities of houses in multiple occupation. Tenants stay for only a short time, and landlords often do not maintain the houses properly. I welcome the Green Paper's conclusion that it may be possible to introduce a discretionary licensing scheme for local authorities. However, when my hon. Friend holds talks with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will he stress that, unless the licensing schemes cover HMOs used as student lets and areas of high demand as well as areas of low demand, they will be of little or no use to my constituency, or to other similar ones elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He often raises with me and with colleagues in the National Assembly issue of student accommodation. I know that he takes a great interest in the matter. The Government are committed to introducing a mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation as soon as there is an opportunity to do so. In the meantime, we are encouraging local authorities to develop local registration schemes.
    I take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend, and I will discuss them with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Mr. James Gray: The Labour Government came to power making extravagant boasts about what they would do about housing in Wales and elsewhere. Given that background, why have they spent less in their first three years in power than the previous Conservative Government spent in their final three years?
    Mr. Hanson: I shall defend the Government's record on housing against that of the hon. Gentleman's Government any time that he wants. There has been more investment in Wales and elsewhere as a result of the Government's achievements. The Green Paper outlines further steps for tackling neglect of the housing stock during the Conservatives' 18 years.
    Mr. John Smith: The Green Paper has been warmly welcomed by every agency in Wales involved in the provision of housing, whether private, public or voluntary. Is my hon. Friend aware that elderly people, of whom there are many in my constituency, have difficulties in looking after their properties once they retire? We welcome the near £30,000

    965
    allocated for care and repair, but more resources are required, and I ask my hon. Friend to bring that point to the attention of his colleagues.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. The National Assembly recognises the need to improve and maintain housing stock in Wales. The Assembly has announced provision of £48 million to support strategic housing schemes and is undertaking a range of measures to support housing in Wales. The partnership between the Government and the National Assembly is tackling housing issues, and we accept that difficulties remain in many places. That work is a stark contrast with what the Conservative party did while it was in office.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: In his discussions with the First Secretary, has the Minister raised the implications of the single-room rent restriction? It results in those under 25 getting into debt and often finding it difficult to get decent accommodation and becoming homeless. Will the restriction be repealed, and if so when?
    Mr. Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Those areas do not fall within my direct responsibilities, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my relevant colleague at DETR, and I shall consider those issues in relation to Wales.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was Secretary of State for Wales the number of houses built in Wales fell by more than 3,000 compared with 1994? What are the prospects for housing in Wales in 2000–01?
    Mr. Hanson: As a constituency Member of Parliament, I recall that the number of life chance opportunities to receive housing in Wales diminished under the Conservative Administration. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), the Assembly has announced provision of an additional £48 million to support strategic housing schemes. In partnership with the British Government, the National Assembly will seek to ensure that more properties are available for rent, and for affordable rents. The Government and the Assembly are committed to tackling the housing backlog that the previous Government allowed to build up.

    Office Costs
    Mr. Eric Pickles: By how much, in real terms, the cost of running his office, or its predecessor, in (a) London and (b) Cardiff has changed since May 1997. [118436]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The cost of running the Welsh Office in 1997–98 was £70 million. For 1999–2000, the cost of running the Wales Office is estimated to be around £2 million. Costs in London and Cardiff are not held separately.
    Mr. Pickles: That is a most interesting answer, and one difficult to comprehend against a virtual doubling of
    966
    Welsh Office staffing. People want the answers to two questions: how were those accounting figures arrived at, and how can the right hon. Gentleman justify costing more and delivering less?
    Mr. Murphy: Most people in Wales want to know whether their interests are properly represented in Westminster and Whitehall. On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, the figure of 26 staff for my office, which was suggested before devolution, was an early rough estimate. When I became Secretary of State, the staff complement was 37, and I expect it to be around 45 by the summer. The figure of 58, which is in the annual report, is a notional one. That number is allowed for in the budget, but I shall ensure that every post is subject to the closest scrutiny before any appointment is made. It is vital that Wales is properly represented at Westminster, and that can be done only if my office is adequately staffed. It is the smallest Department in Westminster, and is smaller than some district council chief executive's departments in Wales.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Conservative central office costs the taxpayer £3 million in Short money? Does he agree that the Wales Office offers the taxpayers of Britain a much better bargain?
    Mr. Murphy: Anything is a better bargain than Conservative central office.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State is of course aware that the House is considering several important Bills, including the Local Government Bill, the Care Standards Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, that will affect Wales. How many of his staff have been allocated to ensure that, during the passage of such Bills, sufficient care is taken that they are properly drafted to take into account the needs of the Assembly and that proper amendments are made in Committee?
    Mr. Murphy: About 13 of the staff to whom I have referred give advice on the whole range of Government and Assembly policy, and about a dozen are included in the Parliamentary branch and as special advisers. In addition, a part-time legal adviser deals with such matters. Furthermore, officials are seconded from the Assembly to deal with legislation.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State will have to give the House a better explanation of his staffing levels than he has done to date. Page 11 of the annual report states that the number of his staff is going up from 34 to 61. Even if that is a notional figure and the number rises only to 58, that is one heck of an increase.
    Page 9 of the White Paper "A Voice for Wales" states:
    The Secretary of State will retain a small team of civil servants to support his work.

    967
    That was the White Paper on which the people of Wales voted in the referendum. Will the right hon. Gentleman fully explain to the House why there has been such a U-turn?
    Mr. Murphy: I have already explained to the House the importance of maintaining a staff that is adequate and satisfactory, both to protect the devolution settlement and to liaise with Cardiff. By no stretch of the imagination could the number of people employed in my Department—they include messengers, paper handlers, receptionists and drivers—be regarded as big. What is important are the big issues with which we are dealing at present—including the question of the children's commissioner, on which I note that the hon. Gentleman did not want to comment. Such issues are hugely important—that is what matters to the people of Wales.
    Mr. Evans: The Government must have known all that before the devolution referendum. We accept that the Secretary of State now has one fewer Minister in his Department, but the number of special advisers has doubled, and the number of his staff will double. Furthermore, the Welsh Assembly grows like Topsy, with four special advisers for its First Secretary. The cost of the Welsh Assembly building—thank goodness, that is on hold—was initially estimated at between £12 million and £17 million; it is now between £26 million and £30 million. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the additional costs for staff in his office? That money could supply 30 extra police or 70 extra nurses. Is it not far better to invest money in front-line services to help the people of Wales, rather than pampering the Secretary of State's virility by boosting the Murphy empire in London?
    Mr. Murphy: Empire! I am not much of an emperor. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about helping front-line services in Wales, perhaps he should refer, for example, to the £112 billion extra for the health service that came from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget. However, a more important point in the context of his remarks is that either he wants Wales to be represented at the Cabinet table and on 22 Cabinet Committees and wants the House to take Welsh legislation seriously, or he does not. Obviously, he does not.

    Rural Communities
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on rural communities in Wales. [118439]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly and we discuss a range of issues. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I presented the Government's legislative programme during two plenary sessions of the National Assembly for Wales in November and December last year.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the hard-pressed rural areas of Wales rely mainly on agriculture for their existence? Although he has announced some additional help, which is very welcome and wholly justified, does he accept that further assistance
    968
    is required for those areas? Does he also accept that the caning of the motorist through Government policies does not help those areas where farmers rely entirely on their own transport and where most of their equipment is petrol or diesel-driven?
    Mr. Murphy: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of agriculture to our rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed transport matters in the Budget in terms of the fuel duty escalator. The Government have also given help to hill farmers, beef farmers and dairy farmers. The Assembly is helping Wales through the rural development plan. The combination of the Government's policies and those of the Labour-led administration in Cardiff are suiting the rural areas of Wales well, and they could not have obtained a better deal.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I welcome the addition last night of new clause 1 to the Postal Services Bill, which will provide possible financial support for post offices when they move to automated credit transfer. It will provide an important safety net, especially for rural post offices. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in his discussions with the First Secretary, the Welsh Assembly is fully involved in drafting the detail of how the financial support will operate?
    Mr. Murphy: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall raise the matter with the First Secretary when we next meet. I agree with my hon. Friend that rural post offices in Wales play a vital role in our communities. As he knows, we are updating our post office network through a major investment in automation. It is untrue to maintain that people in Wales will not be able to receive cash benefits in post offices after 2003. The Cabinet Office is soon to report on rural post offices, including those in Wales. I am pleased to say that, yesterday, the House approved what was then new clause 1, which will allow subsidies to be paid to post offices in Wales.
    Mr. Robert Walter: Legislation for Wales is enacted in the House. The First Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), whom I am pleased to see in his place, are both Members of this place. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when those Labour Members who sit both in the House and in the Welsh Assembly will participate in the Government's legislative programme? The latest figures show that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) have attended half time in Cardiff and have not voted once in the House since the summer. The First Secretary and his predecessor have voted only seven or eight times. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the by-elections will be held and when the people of Wales will be properly represented in the Government's legislative programme?
    Mr. Murphy: I am not quite sure what that has to do with rural areas and the original question. What right hon. and hon. Members do in this context is their own business. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, when the general election comes, those Members who hold a dual mandate will lose it. They will then concentrate on the National

    969
    Assembly for Wales. Before the hon. Gentleman bandies his figures, he should take account of some of the figures that appeared in the list in The Western Mail.The Conservative Member who represented Clwyd, North-West, who is now an Assembly Member, came bottom of that list.

    Transport Bill
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What representations he made to his Cabinet colleagues on the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee Session 1999–2000 on "The Transport Bill and its Impact on Wales" (HC 287); and if he will make a statement. [118440]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): 1 have discussed this matter with ministerial colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, whose Department has responsibility for the Bill, is replying to the Committee on behalf of Government. The Wales Office has been consulted on the content of this reply.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs canvassed the views of the National Assembly for Wales on the Transport Bill. It said that it wanted at least two Welsh members on the Strategic Rail Authority pro tem. We understood that the protocol was that the Minister would take the matter forward with Cabinet Ministers. Why is nothing happening?
    Mr. Hanson: The Wales Office has taken forward a number of issues that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has raised. We have taken on board the duty to consult the Assembly on the SRA member and on policies. We have also taken on board other issues. Wales has one member out of 15, which is on a par with Scotland. Anne Hemingway, who has been appointed, has been welcomed by the Assembly's Secretary with responsibilities for transport. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is important now that the SRA gets on with the business of managing and supporting our railways, and that he is happy with, and supportive of, the member who has been appointed in consultation with the Assembly.

    Dairy Farming
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will next meet the Agriculture Secretary to discuss Welsh dairy fanning. [118441]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): As I have said to the House, the agricultural summit that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired earlier this month agreed on agrimonetary compensation worth about £2.3 million to Welsh dairy farmers. Other measures have also been introduced.
    Mr. Fabricant: That sounds like a very big deal, but does it not cost 2p a pint more to produce milk in Wales than the money actually received at the farm gate? Is the Secretary of State aware that, when translated into real money, the announcement that he has just made is the
    970
    equivalent to a subsidy of only 0.2 per cent. of 1p per pint? Is that not another example of a big Labour announcement and a small and ineffectual delivery?
    Mr. Murphy: What is a big deal in Wales for dairy farmers is not only the £2.3 million to which I have just referred. It is also the removal of dairy hygiene charges, which is worth £180,000; it is the Assembly helping with marketing, processing and productivity for supermarkets; it is meetings in Cardiff with the Agriculture Secretary and it is the establishment of a dairy helpline that was recently set up to give advice to farmers. In addition to that, £15 million extra has been given to Welsh farmers to sustain them in these difficult times. That is why the farming unions in Wales have warmly welcomed the package, which is more than the hon. Gentleman has done.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 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 will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: The brutal deaths in Zimbabwe bring home to us all the fragility of basic human rights around the world. Is the Prime Minister still "comfortable" with the Russian President, Mr. Putin, whose actions in Chechnya to win votes dwarf anything yet tried by the Mugabe regime? Is the Prime Minister still comfortable with Mr. Putin, whose attack in London on Muslims was couched in such fascist terms? If the Prime Minister is still comfortable with Mr. Putin, why should any of us still feel comfortable with this Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: First, I was pleased that President Putin came to this country; I think that it is an important relationship. We made clear our concerns over human rights in Chechnya and those concerns were expressed very forcefully to him. However, I also said—and I believe it—that it is better that we remain engaged with Russia rather than isolate it. I believe that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the international community. I find it curious that members of today's Conservative party do not want us to welcome President Putin here from Russia; they do not want us to welcome the President of China here; they no doubt do not make any European leaders very welcome, and when we have closer relations with the Americans we are the Americans' poodle. I do not think that Conservative foreign policy is a very good basis upon which to conduct the foreign policy of this country.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Monday's announcement of £100 million of state aid to the British coal industry, following hard on the heels of an extra £200 million of assistance to

    971
    British farmers, demonstrates clearly to the people of a constituency such as Selby—which happens to have 3,000 farmers and 3,000 miners—that this Government, unlike some in the 1980s and 1990s, will not pass idly by on the other side of the road when communities are in trouble, but will provide assistance to manage economic change?
    The Prime Minister: It is important—particularly if there is a relaxation of the stricter gas consents policy—that we provide finance for the coal industry to go through the period of restructuring in which it is engaged. That helps people with their jobs, and it also helps with a more balanced energy policy for this country. It is right that this Government—in circumstances where industrial restructuring is taking place—stand behind people, help them and work hard for their future.
    Mr. William Hague: The whole House will have been horrified to hear of the brutal murders that have taken place in Zimbabwe in recent days. Given the daily deepening crisis, is it not now clear that the right vehicle for a firm response is the Commonwealth? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government would have the support of the Opposition for initiating in the Commonwealth decisions on at least the possibility of suspending Zimbabwe and for investigating the possibility of freezing the international assets of Mugabe and his associates?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the situation in Zimbabwe is disgraceful and we condemn utterly the barbaric attacks on farmers, which are totally unacceptable. The question is what should be the right response of this country. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are in touch not only with other African leaders in the area, but with people who represent the Opposition and the farmers union in Zimbabwe. It is important to consult those people and take their advice, and we are acting in accordance with that advice.
    Of course we are pursuing every avenue open to us at Commonwealth level. A meeting will take place in about 10 days to discuss the action that the Commonwealth will take. It is important that we make sure that the action that Britain takes as a country helps those people in Zimbabwe, and does not make the situation worse for them.
    Mr. Hague: Of course I am grateful for the Prime Minister's reply, although many people might think that 10 days is a long time to wait for a Commonwealth meeting when events are moving on by the hour and it must be possible to have an earlier meeting. It is also important to listen to Opposition figures and others in Zimbabwe. However, Mr. Chavanduka, the editor of the Zimbabwe Standard, asks:
    How much worse must the situation in Zimbabwe get before action is taken? Words will not affect Mugabe, but pressure from Britain might.
    Is not the clear lesson of history that tyranny must always be dealt with firmly? Is it not at such moments that the Commonwealth family of nations comes into its own? Will the Prime Minister try at that meeting, whenever it is held, to initiate a high-level Commonwealth delegation, backed by the threat of a firm response, to try to persuade
    972
    Mugabe to uphold the rule of law, to end the illegal occupation of farms and to put a stop to intimidation and murder?
    The Prime Minister: The meeting is, as I said, taking place in about 10days, but we have already been in touch with Commonwealth partners, as well as with the United Nations; indeed, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, last night. We have also been in detailed touch with Opposition leaders. The leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change rejected a call from the British Conservative Opposition to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. I point out also that Mr. Tim Henwood, the president of the Commercial Farmers Union in Zimbabwe, has said:
    I call on everyone involved internally and externally to refrain from emotional reaction and interference. Zimbabweans will solve this problem.
    There is a difficult balance to strike. I have utterly condemned the situation. Of course I condemn it, and we want to take any action that is helpful to those people in Zimbabwe. Contrary to some reports in the press in the past few days, we are taking action not only at the European Union level—although of course that is important—but at a Commonwealth level and in the United Nations, but it is best that we are guided by those with most to lose, and not by those who are commenting on the situation from a safe distance.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will welcome the Prime Minister's measured response to this delicate, difficult situation. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the rule of law. The Prime Minister has referred to the United Nations, the European Union and Commonwealth countries. Will he give the House an assurance that he and his Government will take a positive lead to ensure that the rule of law is restored in Zimbabwe?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will do so. However, as I pointed out a moment ago, we will do so in the way that is most helpful to the people in Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The whole House will share the sense of revulsion about the murderous events in Zimbabwe. Does the Prime Minister concur that talk of sanctions at this time could only help to solidify President Mugabe's position and allow him to return to his rhetoric about colonialism and external threat, and to make a dangerous situation worse? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the real priority for the Foreign Office and the Government is to get President Mugabe to return to his senses on this issue and agree to a restoration of the rule of law, stop the incitement to violence from the top and, most important, sign up internationally, in front of the global community, to a firm date for full and free democratic elections?
    The Prime Minister: Those are sensible propositions. That is precisely what we should be doing and it is what we shall do.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. There might yet prove to be a need for an asylum option for some of those who are under threat, either opposition politicians or farmers. As this country

    973
    historically and internationally has a proud and noble tradition of offering asylum, will the Prime Minister assure the House that, if any opposition politicians or farmers from Zimbabwe come to this country, they will not be greeted by a detention camp, as the Conservatives have proposed?
    The Prime Minister: There are abuses of the asylum system, and we are dealing with those abuses. However,
    I agree that it is important that we all deal with that issue in a responsible manner.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today is an historic day for millions of disabled people in Britain, with the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission? Will he join me in congratulating the commission and its chair, Bert Massie, who today made it clear that, either by force of argument or by force of law, the commission will ensure that never again will disabled people in Britain be regarded as second-class citizens?
    The Prime Minister: It would not be right to welcome the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission without also paying tribute to my right hon. Friend and all the work that he has done over many years for disabled people. The essence of the proposal, which we as a Government were proud to introduce, is to ensure that disabled members of our society are full and equal participating members of that society. We are proud that that is so.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Prime Minister agree that people's confidence in politics is often undermined by politicians' deceptive use of language and their economy with the facts?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I do.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Consequent to the reference made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to politicians' use of language, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in commending the Home Secretary who, last week, gave indefinite right of entry to a Kurdish boy in my constituency who, last year, at the age of 13, escaped from Iraqi murderers and torturers to arrive in this country? Which does my right hon. Friend regard as preferable: that the boy should have been allowed to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in my constituency with his elder brother, who already has refugee status; or that he should have been put in a prison camp, as the leader of the Conservative party proposes?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend's point is that it is important to make a distinction. As I said, there are real abuses of the asylum system and we have to deal with those abuses. That was the purpose of the legislation introduced last year and it is the purpose of the measures that we are taking now. However, this country should always be willing to take in those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. That is a noble tradition of ours and I, for one, would not like to see it disappear.
    Sir Robert Smith: Given that three sub-post offices have
    974
    recently closed in my constituency and that last night the Postal Services Bill was amended so that the Secretary of State may take powers to devise a scheme to maintain the sub-post office network, will the Prime Minister say when those powers will be taken and what the detailed contents of the scheme will be, so that those who have to invest in such a vital service to my community know when they can do so?
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely the reason why we have a process in place that allows us to discuss with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses the need to ensure that post offices have a viable future. The powers taken under the legislation add a further dimension, by allowing us to ensure that they have a future. As I said last week, of course there has to be change and of course post offices will do new things in future. Inevitably, larger numbers of people will want to receive their benefits—whether child benefit or their pension—through their bank account. We are sitting down with the parties now and working out a programme for the future. That is the right way to proceed.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: While I do not doubt that the Prime Minister is as pleased as any Member of Parliament by the drop in the unemployment figures announced today and by yesterday's announcement that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years, does he accept that his Government will be judged not by those things but by the way in which they improve the standard of living of poor and middle-income families, who suffered so much under the Conservatives?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that employment is up to a new record level of 27.8 million. Well over 800,000 more people are in work today than when we came to office; 420,000 young people have joined the new deal, with more than 190,000 of them in jobs; and long-term and youth unemployment are down by 70 per cent. since the election. That is a Labour Government delivering for the British people.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why has the Prime Minister refused to take any action over a clear breach of the ministerial code by the Deputy Prime Minister? Is it not absurd to have delegated that matter to be resolved by the Deputy Prime Minister himself?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says at all.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people and political parties who go around stirring up issues relating to the plight of asylum seekers in Britain breed only intolerance and disharmony in our society, and that we, along with everyone in this nation, should seek a society that is more tolerant to the plight of those individuals?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, the problem with the asylum system is being sorted out by the measures that the Government have taken, but it is important to remember that the problem is not exclusive to Britain—it occurs throughout Europe. Although one would not know it to read

    975
    some of the information in the media on the subject, Britain is around ninth out of 15 in terms of the number of asylum applications per head; Germany has more asylum seekers than us; in Switzerland the numbers have doubled; in Belgium and Austria they have tripled; and, as I discovered last night in the course of other conversations in Ireland, asylum seekers are a problem there too. It is important to recognise that it is a problem that we need to deal with. We are dealing with it, but—this is the point that my hon. Friend rightly makes—it should be dealt with in a reasonable, responsible and tolerant manner.
    Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in the financial year just ended, the Government spent £633 million more on the cost of administration in Whitehall than even they had planned, and that the cost of running No. 10 Downing street rose by 23 per cent. in a single year?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to raise the issue of asylum.
    On the cost of central Government, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. In real terms, the costs of Government are falling and are less than they were in the last year of the previous Government.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister says that I am wrong, but these are the Government's figures published by the Government last week. The right hon. Gentleman is spending £10 million on his own office. These figures are available for £15.30. He says that the costs of Government are falling in real terms, but when inflation is 2 per cent. and his costs in No. 10 Downing street go up by 23 per cent., how can they be falling in real terms?
    The truth is that this is a Government who spend more money each year on spin doctors, political advisers and bureaucracy, and nowhere more so than in No. 10 Downing street. Will he now confirm that, for the first time in a quarter of a century, the Government plan more civil servants this year than last year, and that the costs of running the Lord Chancellor's Department have increased by £106 million?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. Again, in real terms, the cost of Government is falling. The percentage costs of Government are lower than when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. The right hon. Gentleman is simply dealing with cash money, not real-terms figures, as he knows perfectly well. If we take the real-terms figures, we are spending less. As for the money in No. 10 Downing street—[Interruption.]I am just informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there has been a threefold increase in the Opposition's Short pot, so when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet for the third time, he can offer us our first spending cut.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister will not answer the question. He says that he does not accept the figures, but they are the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures. How has the Lord Chancellor spent £100 million? He cannot have spent it all on wallpaper. [Interruption.]Instead of conferring with the Home Secretary, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plan the first increase in the number of civil servants in a quarter of a
    976
    century, and that the cost of running the Department of Trade and Industry has risen by £114 million in three years?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not confirm that. Why does the right hon. Gentleman raise the matter? I shall explain: he has a big hole in his tax and spending plans, so he runs around the country claiming that if he gets rid of a few special advisers he can rebuild the health service and cut everyone's taxes. He has said that he will cut everyone's taxes, spend the same amount of money, and spend even more on defence, farmers, local government—and asylum to judge from yesterday's reports. He makes his pathetic attempt at the Dispatch Box because Haguenomics is beginning to be found out. By the time we get through with the Conservative party in the next general election, the right hon. Gentleman's economic policy will be in ruins along with his party.
    Mr. Hague: So, the right hon. Gentleman will not confirm the figures; he does not like the figures—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hague: So now we know—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That does not mean the noise can start again.
    Mr. Hague: Now we know that the Lord Chancellor spends an extra £100 million, and the Prime Minister does not know why; the Department of Trade and Industry spends £114 million more, and he does not know why; the Home Office spends £440 million more, and he does not know why. According to the Government's own figures, they spend £2,000 million more on pen pushers, not police; on bureaucrats, not teachers; on spin doctors, not real doctors. The Government tax so much more, but deliver so much less.
    The Prime Minister: All I can say on value for money is that if the right hon. Gentleman gets three times the amount of Short money, he should get better advice.
    Under this Government, the number of nurses is up; the number of doctors is up; the number of teachers is up. The only thing that is going down is the Tory party.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Madam Speaker: Not today.
    Kali Mountford: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the number of nurses is up. I went to my local pathology department in Huddersfield royal infirmary last week—I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time to visit it. It was clear from my visit that the Labour Government arrived not a day too soon to provide much-needed investment. The 8.75 per cent. in cash terms—more than 7 per cent. in real terms—is a genuine investment, and the modernisation fund is also important to departments such as pathology departments. What

    977
    advice would my right hon. Friend give the Huddersfield royal infirmary and other trusts when they apply to the modernisation fund this month?
    The Prime Minister: The modernisation fund is an important part not only of getting more nurses into the health service but of ensuring that we modernise facilities. That is why all the accident and emergency departments in the country are being modernised if they wish. The Opposition, through their medical insurance plans and their refusal to support the increases in tobacco duty, have a £1.5 billion hole in their accounts. If they were re-elected, there would be fewer nurses and less modernisation in the national health service. That is one very good reason why it is not safe in their hands and never has been.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Prime Minister able to reassure disillusioned pensioners that Blairism has succeeded, or are the press reports true which say that his party has effectively written off pensioners as a group worth cultivating?
    The Prime Minister: No, they are not true at all. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what we have done for pensioners: there is an extra £6.5 billion of spending; 1 million pensioners are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee; pensioner households have the £150 winter fuel allowance, and there are free eye tests for those pensioners as well; value added tax on fuel has been cut; and the over-75s in his constituency will have free television licences. Of course pensioners want us to do even more, but the one thing they should know is that if they ever got a Conservative Government back, those changes would be reversed and that money taken off them.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is aware that I have the honour to represent a number of survivors of the Nazi holocaust. Does he agree that many of those who find safety in this country contribute to the well-being and richness of our nation? Does he share my view that there is nothing at all patriotic about threatening to incarcerate every asylum seeker while campaigning for the freedom of dictators such as Pinochet?
    The Prime Minister: Again, let me emphasise what we are doing to tackle abuses. We are speeding up the process and 11,000 decisions are being taken in a month. We are hiring extra immigration officials—another 700. The new changes such as the withdrawal of cash benefit and the introduction of fines for hauliers who take part in illegal immigration will enable us to tighten up the system and make sure that those who abuse it are not allowed to do so; but I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to the House a moment or two ago, there is a duty on us all to treat this issue responsibly and not inflame or exploit it. We need to tackle the abuses of the system. We are doing that, but we should never turn our backs on those fleeing persecution and we should never put at risk our reputation as a tolerant, multiracial society. We should be proud of it.
    Mr. Richard Spring: On top of the highest petrol prices in Europe and a collapse in farm incomes, is the Prime Minister aware of the impact in a rural area such as Suffolk of council tax increases of four times the rate of inflation? The county
    978
    council has put the tax up by 28 per cent. over the three years since he took office. To whom does he ascribe that huge increase—central Government or the county council, which is Labour led but propped up by his friends, the Liberal Democrats?
    The Prime Minister: First, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the average council tax is less in Labour areas than in Conservative areas. Secondly, under the previous Government there was a 19 per cent. council tax increase in the few years before we took office. In relation to the countryside and farmers, we announced a package that included both short-term aid and long-term help for the farming industry, but demands for extra spending made in the House do not sit well in the mouths of Conservative Members who tell their constituents that they will cut everybody's taxes. At some point, as we discovered with the Leader of the Opposition earlier, they will have to make a choice.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Health service funding in Warwickshire has increased by £60 million since the general election—a 30 per cent. increase in cash terms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any party that claimed that it could sustain such increased investment in health care while cutting taxes, regardless of the economy's performance, would be all mouth and no credibility?
    The Prime Minister: It is the Conservative party's position that it would reintroduce private medical insurance measures, which would be an immediate £500 million cost just for those who already have it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members shake their heads, but that is their policy. At some point, if they want to be taken seriously, they should start defending it openly. They would spend less money on health, and their tax and spending plans do not add up, but the important thing is that, having sorted out the public finances and laid the foundations of a stable economy, we are able to make an extra investment in the health service—not only this year, but in succeeding years as well. That is why I can tell the House the latest figures on nurses: 5,500 more nurses have come back to nursing and the number of student nurses has risen from 11,200 to 16,000. We are laying the foundations for a better-staffed health service for the future.
    Mr. John Burnett: Rural fire services have vast areas to cover and they are under constant financial pressure. They are essential services that we all value. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be in the interests of council tax payers if fire authorities, like the police, were separate precepting authorities for the purposes of that tax?
    The Prime Minister: I know that in the hon. Gentleman' s constituency and in many others people want additional spending, but the Liberal Democrats cannot carry on asking for more and more spending without saying where that money would come from. If they say that there should be more spending, it is important that they are honest about their tax plans. The hon. Gentleman talks about a separate precept as if that meant nothing. He presumably wants a separate precept so as to raise the amount of money taken from it.

    979
    In the past few weeks, the Liberal Democrats have called for more spending on pensioners and health, more spending on post offices, more spending on farming, more spending on incapacity benefit, more spending on buses, railways, the environment and housing, more spending for
    980
    nurseries, schools and universities, more spending on the countryside, the regions and inner cities, more spending on benefits and more spending on police. At some point in time, the word "credibility" should enter the Liberal Democrat dictionary.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In March this year, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued to outside organisations guidelines on full local transport plans. That document has been made widely available to outside organisations, including motoring organisations, but it is not available in the Vote Office. I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and it is valid to make the point that this document should have been circulated to all members of that Committee, and should be available at least in the Vote Office.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As the House knows only too well, I am most vigilant in seeking to ensure that Ministers meet their obligations to Parliament. On this occasion, I have no criticism to make of the Department's activities. The issuance of guidance on full local transport plans, to which she referred, was announced in a written answer on 27 March, and a copy of the document was placed in the Library. It is a matter of ministerial discretion whether copies of documents of this nature are also placed in the Vote Office, taking account of a document's significance, the likely interest in it and resource constraints.
In this case, Ministers decided not to place copies in the Vote Office, and I happen to think that that was a reasonable decision. Any Member who has a particular interest in a document is, of course, able to consult it in the Library, to obtain a personal copy through the Vote Office in the usual way, or to call the Department and ask for it.
Mr. David Heath: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of it.
Madam Speaker: No, I do not have it.
Mr. Heath: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. I sent it to your office, and I apologise if it has not reached you.
982
As you know, Madam Speaker, the Government have announced their intention to add a variety of genetically modified maize to the national seed list. I raised this matter in business questions last week, and I seek your guidance. Representations against that addition are governed by regulation 21 of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982, which require people wishing to make a representation to pay a sum of £30 to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and pay an additional £60 if they want to make a direct representation.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on whether matters of privilege are raised if right hon. or hon. Members of the House want to represent their constituencies and feel strongly about this matter, but have no way of raising it, because it is not part of any business before the House—except by providing a £30 cheque, which 1 have done.
Madam Speaker: I did not receive notice of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but that does not matter; I shall try to deal with it in any case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of privilege, which means that I must consider his point of order immediately and give him a written answer. I shall do so now that I have heard what he had to say.

BILL PRESENTED
  SCHOOL ADMISSIONS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Burstow, supported by Mr. Tom Brake, Mr. Edward Davey, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Simon Hughes and Dr. Vincent Cable, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to school admission arrangements for maintained schools to allow admission authorities to give precedence to pupils seeking admission who live within the area of the local education authority; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 5 May, and to be printed [Bill 116].

Concessionary Parking Scheme (Extension)
3.35 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to extend concessionary parking arrangements available to disabled people to health and social services professionals on duty.
The Bill would also include carers when they are on duty.
Carers provide disadvantaged members of society, whether they are elderly, infirm or disabled, with the dignity of living at home. They also fill the gap left by cash-strapped social services departments, which have such strict criteria that ill, handicapped or frail people needing less than seven days care a week are rarely given any help. That is where organisations such as Pramacare in my constituency come in. That charity gives help and care to more than 500 clients a week, allowing them to stay independent in their own homes.
Those involved in the care sector have received precious little help and support from the present Government, who in the last Session failed to back a private Member's Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) which would have given community bus schemes a rebate on the fuel that they use. That would have drastically cut costs for those who operate bus services for elderly and disabled people, providing them with a means of getting out of the house.
The problem of parking, on which I shall focus, has been highlighted by the Royal College of Nursing, which has said:
Community nurses, health visitors and midwives find parking a particularly vexing issue.
One of our members (who is a midwife) recently reported that when she was attending an unanticipated and sudden home delivery, she received a parking ticket which the council refused to retract despite her explanation. She was not alone in her complaints about this problem.
This is where my Bill comes in. It would require local authorities to extend the concessionary parking arrangements available to disabled people to include registered health and social service professionals and carers when on duty. That would aid all carers, but especially those dealing with people living on busy roads or with little parking provision. The problem is extremely widespread: the RCN has given me numerous examples of the parking difficulties experienced by its members and others.
Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, a badge may be issued to a disabled person in the area of the issuing authority for any vehicle that he or she drives. Displaying the badge allows that person to park in areas that are usually restricted—for example, on double yellow lines. Under the Act, a badge may also be issued to an institution concerned with care of the disabled for any motor vehicle used by or on behalf of the institution to carry disabled persons of any prescribed description.
The problem arises when a carer or a health professional, such as a health visitor, district nurse or midwife, is called out and has to find and pay for a valid
984
parking space, thus wasting valuable time. A spokesman for the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association said:
I can't tell you how strongly our members feel about this. Some are having to park illegally or a long way away from their home visit.
She continued:
there are three problems: having to search for a space can reduce client contact time; there may also be health and safety issues with nurses staggering around with heavy bags…it's very common for community nurses to have to fork out for parking, which often isn't reimbursed.
My Bill would allow members of accredited agencies while on duty to park directly outside the house or block of flats in which their patients live, whether or not there are parking restrictions such as double yellow lines or residents permit requirements. In my constituency, Poole councillor Mrs. Ann Stribley has persuaded the borough's social services of the merits of the scheme, and Pramacare's helpers are now permitted to park on yellow lines when visiting the homes of people in their care if no other suitable slot is available.
As Pramacare' s appeals chairman, a position that I duly registered when I was elected to the House and that is unremunerated—I do the job voluntarily—I know how well the scheme has worked. Its merits should be available in every other constituency.
Of course, I do not expect local authorities to issue individual permits to each and every carer operating within their boundary. My Bill proposes that concessionary parking disks be issued to accredited agencies, with a local authority overseeing the process. The number of disks and the precise conditions attached to their use should be for those authorities to decide in the light of local needs and circumstances. I make it clear at this early stage that any sustained abuse of the concession by an individual or organisation could lead to permits being withdrawn.
As an advocate of legislation to address delays caused by street works, the last thing that I want is to cause more congestion because vehicles have been thoughtlessly parked, or left on yellow lines for an unnecessarily prolonged period. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a genuine need to help community-based health visitors and carers to do their jobs without the pressure of seeking somewhere to leave their cars. The scheme must be seen to benefit those who are doing their jobs in the community and whose time is too precious to be wasted.
May I briefly mention the technicalities of the Bill? Local authorities are already obliged under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to maintain a register showing the holders of badges issued. Grouping carers' permits under the umbrella of the organisation for which they work, will ensure that the administrative cost of extending the register to those included within the Bill will be nominal.
That approach will address the fact that neither a local authority nor the umbrella organisation may be able to plan for specific numbers of employees in advance. We need to build in some flexibility of approach so that the scheme does not become tedious or costly to administer, or create problems for those whom its seeks to help. The good cause must be seen in the light of the cost that the Government were willing to impose for replacing the orange badge with a new European model blue badge, which came into effect on 1 April.

985
As I have said, use of the badges must be properly restricted to those who genuinely qualify under my proposals and they must be allowed to use them only for their intended purpose. The permits would remain the property of the local authority so that they could be withdrawn if used improperly.
I hope that Members who are present and the Government will agree that the Bill is vital to a sector of the community on whose dedication and care we may all one day have cause to call. I urge the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. John Bercow, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. Andrew Tyrie.

Concessionary Parking Scheme (Extension)
  CONCESSIONARY PARKING SCHEME (EXTENSION)
  Mr. Christopher Fraser accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to extend concessionary parking arrangements available to disabled people to health and social services professionals on duty: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 117].
Orders of the Day

  Utilities Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  3.43 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to delay matters, but I wonder whether I could seek your guidance on a matter of record and on how the House is supposed to follow proceedings when the Government keep chopping and changing a particular Bill.
  At column 730 of the 11 April report of the Standing Committee, a new clause that I drafted to consolidate the Bill is clearly marked as having been agreed to by a vote of nine to three. However, I am reliably informed by colleagues who were there that it was withdrawn. The problem is not that, after great running around, I have been able to get to the bottom of that; it is simply that people outside this place have the greatest difficulty following the Bill.
  The matter is particularly relevant to today's recommittal motion, which I hope the Government will accept. The Bill has been a mess from start to finish, and the poor people outside the House who will be affected by its provisions have not had a chance to keep us informed of what they want us to do.
  Madam Speaker: I shall not comment on the Bill's contents, as that is, of course, not my role. However, if it helps the hon. Gentleman, and particularly those of whom he speaks, I can make it clear that, as he said, there was—I can put it no higher or lower—a considerable printing muddle in parts of the Hansard to which he referred. I make it clear to him and to those whom he mentioned that that does not affect today's passage of the Bill.
  3.45 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
  That the Bill be re committed to the former Committee.
  The Utilities Bill has been unprecedented in Department of Trade and Industry Ministers' failure to know what is going on in other Departments, and it is unprecedented in the way in which the Government have handled its passage through Parliament. From the very beginning, it was clear that the Bill was poorly and hastily drafted—consultation was still taking place on the policy underlying the Bill. The press reported that 900 Government amendments were still required to the 134-clause Bill. The explanatory notes admitted that
  the Government intends to bring forward amendments later in the passage of the Bill
  to give effect to a long list of measures that the Government still intended to include in the Bill, the clauses for which had not been drafted.
  The Utilities Bill is not an insignificant Bill. Initially, it was intended to provide a new regulatory framework for all four main utilities—gas, electricity, water and telecommunications. The new framework would impose new duties and liabilities on the utilities sectors that would increase the regulatory risk to those capital-intensive companies. It would provide for a new £0.75 billion

  987
  electricity trading arrangement and for separation of the licences for electricity distribution and supply. It is a framework that would provide for limitless fines. This is no insignificant Bill.
  The Bill was heralded as a flagship Bill of this Session, and it will provide the regulatory framework for many years to come. However, despite its importance, from the very start it has been handled with amateurish incompetence. The Bill that we are considering today bears very little resemblance to the Bill that left the Chamber after Second Reading at the end of January.
  In Committee, the Government tabled 359 amendments to the Bill. Many of them were tabled on a just-in-time basis, with the ink barely dry. The Government have tabled an additional 22 amendments for today's debate. We understand that they plan to table yet more amendments when the Bill is considered in another place. Despite that, the Government have still not sought to legislate on categories mentioned in the explanatory notes. We had the Committee's notorious ninth sitting on 2 March, when the Government announced that they were removing from the Bill all clauses dealing with the water and telecommunications sectors.
  Water was removed from the Bill because of a turf war between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions over policy, and the fact that DETR would be introducing its own water Bill later in the year. Telecommunications was removed because of the industry's outcry that a change in the regulatory structure would be imposed on it within two years of a further major upheaval after the telecommunications White Paper is published in the autumn. It beggars belief that a Government who claim to be up to speed with dot.com should have treated telecommunications like a sitcom. Nothing more clearly demonstrates the shambles at the heart of Government policy than their handling of utilities regulation.
  As a result of the removal of those clauses, the so-called Utilities Bill was confined to dealing with gas and electricity. However, by the ninth sitting, clauses relating to telecommunications had already been passed. Those clauses—now clauses 101 to 105—remain in the Bill, despite the fact that telecommunications are no longer part of the legislation. The Government are seeking to delete those clauses today.
  The Bill had half of its major provisions removed and some 359 Government amendments were tabled—of which some 260 were accepted—yet it still requires further amendment by the Government today and at later stages. It bears no resemblance to the measure that was originally drafted. To make matters worse, a number of the more substantial clauses were tabled by the Government in a way that prevented members of the Standing Committee from scrutinising them properly and from tabling amendments to them.
  For example, 56 Government amendments were tabled late on Friday 31 March. The first that Committee members knew of those amendments was on Monday 3 April, by which time it was too late to table further amendments as the clauses were being debated on the following day, Tuesday 4 April. Even more seriously, that
  988
  gave the interested public no time to examine the amendments and feed in their views to right hon. and hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee.
  The Bill is a travesty in terms of democratic representation. Even if the 56 amendments had been tabled on the Thursday, which would have given hon. Members enough time to table amendments, it still would not have been a satisfactory way in which to scrutinise such important legislation. Our procedures have not evolved to deal with substantial re-writes of legislation in Committee without significant notice being given. By convention, there is always a week or more between the Second Reading of a Bill and its consideration in Committee. That enables the public to make representations to Members of Parliament. That convention should also apply to major Government amendments to Bills in Committee, but in this case that convention has been flouted.
  Despite an apology from the Government Whip, the same thing happened again with 14 Government new clauses being tabled late on Thursday 6 April for debate on Tuesday 11 April. Once again, they were not available to Committee members until the Friday. Therefore, although it was technically possible to table amendments, in practice there was far too little time for effective consultation or to receive representations. The Electricity Association said:
  We do not have any comments on the new clauses and schedules at this stage other than to say that it is completely unsatisfactory to have significant amendments with far-reaching implications being laid at this stage in the Parliamentary process. We will be working up our position on these amendments during the coming week.
  British Gas plc said of the new clauses:
  They have been brought forward in a piecemeal way and have not been the subject of any industry consultation.
  Yet the Government claim that they listen to business.
  During the 22nd sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about how many more Government amendments the Minister intended to table, said:
  I will undertake during the Committee's deliberations to have a check made on the number of amendments that are likely to be tabled and on what issues.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, Tuesday 4 April 2000; c. 667.]
  In other words, it was a matter not for the Minister, but for her civil servants. It was been clear throughout the Standing Committee that Ministers were not properly engaged in the detail of the Bill and that it was very much a case of reading from prepared briefs.
  It is clear that the Government have handled the Bill poorly. It is riddled with errors, poor drafting and policy confusion. The Government's handling of the Bill has resulted in many of its amendments being subject to minimal scrutiny by the Standing Committee. Today we are considering a completely different Bill from that which went into Committee. It is our view that the Bill needs to be scrutinised again in Committee before it comes back to the House on Report and Third Reading.
  We would add that we are keen to ensure that what is now clause 66 is put on the statute book at the earliest opportunity, to enable the new electricity trading arrangements to start in October this year. Therefore, if the recommittal motion is passed today, we will support the Government if they wish to fast track clause 66 on to the statute book through a separate Bill.

  989
  Parliamentary scrutiny is vital in protecting people's freedom from the ever-growing power of the state. That scrutiny has been undermined by the Government during the passage of this important Bill to re-regulate the gas and electricity industries. I urge the House to support the motion to give the Bill the extra scrutiny it requires and to recommit it to Committee.
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I will ask the House to vote against the Opposition's motion to recommit the Bill to Committee for further consideration. I contend that this attempt by the Opposition is a last-ditch effort to deprive consumers of the benefits of this Bill. They are showing yet again that they are the fat cats' friend.
  The attack on the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for his amateurish handling of the Bill was grossly over-exaggerated. He may not have been terribly good, but he spent much of his time in solitary confinement in Committee because his Back Benchers failed to come and support him, and that is an indication of how important this Bill really is to the Opposition.
  Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman, who has never knowingly understated anything in his life, repeatedly claimed that there would be 900 amendments to the Bill. More than 700 amendments were tabled in total, of which 303 were Government amendments. Indeed, on the first day in Committee I drew his attention to the activities of the previous Administration who, during the passage of the Companies Act 1989, tabled 400 amendments in the other place and 110 to one part of the Bill on Report. I do not know why the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is getting so worked up, given that she was a member of that Administration. Indeed, they tabled 60 amendments on the very first day in Committee.
  The Opposition have been inconsistent in their handling of this Bill. The hon. Lady attacks the Government for the withdrawal of the telecommunications clauses, despite the fact that on 29 February the hon. Gentleman said that he would help the Government to remove them. It is time that the Opposition started talking to each other.
  On Second Reading, the Opposition confirmed their support for the reform of the electricity pool, the merging of the gas and electricity regulators and the establishment of the consumer council. When I asked the hon. Gentleman on 7 March whether he was going back on those commitments to helping to get the Bill on the statute book, he said, "No, of course not." He also said at the last sitting of the Committee that he looked forward to further consideration on Report. Obviously, someone higher in the pecking order has told him that he should not have done so, because of the failure of the Opposition to organise themselves properly in Committee.
  It is important that we get this legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible because it will lead to a reduction in wholesale electricity prices of around 10 per cent. Already, in the futures market, we are seeing a 30 per cent. reduction in forward prices for electricity. It is also important that we reverse the set-up under the previous Administration whereby shareholders have priority over consumers. It is important also to take into account the provisions for fuel poverty in this Bill, as well as the provisions for renewables.
  990
  4 pm
  I contend that the Opposition have tabled this motion in an attempt to keep the Bill off the statute book for as long as possible. They are wasting the valuable time of the House and of those hon. Members who considered the Bill in Standing Committee A. I believe that the Bill is ready to be considered on Report and on Third Reading. I invite the House to vote against the motion for recommittal.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 137, Noes 282.

  Division No. 171]

  [4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Allan, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Horam, John

  Ballard, Jackie

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bercow, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Brady, Graham

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brake, Tom

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait. Mrs Jacqui

  Breed, Colin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Burnett, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Burstow, Paul

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Madel, Sir David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moore, Michael

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Robertson, Laurence

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ruffley, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fraser, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Garnier, Edward

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gibb, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gill, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

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

  Gray, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Green, Damian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hancock, Mike

  Steen, Anthony

  Harvey, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wells, Bowen

  Syms, Robert

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, William

  Willis, Phil

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tyler, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walter, Robert

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darvill, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Battle, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dobbin, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Goggins, Paul

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

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

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lock, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAllion, John

  Salter, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  McCabe, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McDonnell, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miller, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Todd, Mark

  Wills, Michael

  Touhig, Don

  Winnick, David

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tynan, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  White, Brian

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Utilities Bill
    New Clause 3

      INTERPRETATION
      '.—(l) In this Act—

      "Authority" means the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority;

      "Council" means the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council;

      "electricity licence" means a licence under section 6 of the 1989 Act;

      "gas licence" means a licence under section 7 or 7A of the 1986 Act;

      "the 1986 Act" means the Gas Act 1986;

      "the 1989 Act" means the Electricity Act 1989.

      (2) Expressions used in this Act, as regards matters relating to gas, and in Part I of the 1986 Act have, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning as in that Part of that Act.
      (3) Expressions used in this Act, as regards matters relating to electricity, and in Part I of the 1989 Act have, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning as in that Part of that Act.'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

      Motion to transfer clause 107.

      Government amendment No. 6.

      Motion to transfer clause 108.

      Government amendments Nos. 8 to 21.

      Mrs. Liddell: As I have already made clear, the Bill is an important one for the Government; it provides the basis for pushing ahead with further and more effective competition in energy markets, while ensuring that all consumers, including the disadvantaged, enjoy the benefits of competition in gas and electricity. The Bill also modernises the regulatory framework to accommodate converging gas and electricity markets. It underlines the importance that we attach to improving the transparency, consistency and predictability of regulation as the foundation for better decisions and greater regulatory stability.
      994
      Thanks to the efforts of the Committee, nearly all the substantive work is complete. That is why the Government are tabling only two groups of amendments. In each case, we informed the Committee well in advance of our intention to table these amendments on Report.
      The first group is technical in nature. As the House is aware, the Government said on 2 March that we were removing from the Bill the provisions relating to water and telecommunications. Soon afterwards, the Committee amended the Bill to remove most of those provisions. We now seek to remove the remaining provisions relating to telecommunications, which were considered by the Committee.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Ian Bruce: A fairly limited number of amendments have been tabled on Report. We noticed in Committee that amendments were appearing more slowly than usual because the officials appeared not to be able to keep up. When we have considered the Bill on Report, does the Minister intend to introduce another raft of amendments in the other place? Will she indicate which areas of the Bill the Government still intend to amend before it returns for final consideration in this place?
      Mrs. Liddell: It is not the Government's intention to introduce substantive issues in another place. Inevitably there will be other amendments, but we do not intend to table a substantial number on substantive issues. I cannot be more precise than that. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, and he knows that the Bill will be examined and that some technical and drafting amendments may have to be tabled in the other place.
      Mr. John Bercow: What proportion of the new clauses and Government amendments will require the introduction of additional and previously unforeseen regulations? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether those regulations, in whole or in part, will be subject to the negative or to the affirmative procedure?
      Mrs. Liddell: I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman. I wish to make some progress in the areas covered by the amendments that we have tabled for discussion today. The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, so I am being more generous to him than I would be to those who attended the Committee's sittings. I shall now move on to the amendments, which are very important.
      Amendments Nos. 4, 9 and 11 to 21 remove the remaining provisions relating to telecommunications. Amendment No. 4 deletes clauses 101 to 104, which among other things would have established the Telecommunications Authority and the Telecommunications Consumer Council. Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 to 21 delete consequential references to the authority and the council. The remaining Government amendments all follow from the removal of telecoms provisions and serve to improve the coherence of the Bill after those provisions are removed.
      Amendment No. 4, new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 8 and 10 bring together the separate extent and interpretation provisions in clauses 100 and 109.
      Mr. Nick Gibb: In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the

      995
      Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), the right hon. Lady said that there were no substantive new clauses to be tabled in another place. Will she say when she intends to table the amendments referred to in the explanatory notes, which refer to
      measures consequential on the separation of electricity distribution and supply, including provision for transfer schemes for public electricity supplies?
      When will those amendments be tabled?
      Mrs. Liddell: Consequential amendments will be tabled in another place under the normal arrangements and through the usual channels.
      Amendment No. 10 inserts a single provision stating the extent of the Bill in the final clause. New clause 3 gathers together provisions relating to interpretation, which will be inserted in the final part of the Bill.
      Removing telecommunications clauses removes the rationale for separating provisions amending the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 to give the Competition Commission a veto power following licence modification references in other clauses amending those Acts.
      Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6, which are linked to the two Government motions, reinsert these provisions unchanged in the appropriate places in chapter IV, which provides for amendment of the Electricity Act 1989, and in chapter V, which provides for amendment of the Gas Act 1986.
      Mr. Gibb: I am astonished by the Minister. Is she not embarrassed to introduce this group of amendments when the vast majority of them will remove the remaining telecommunications clauses from the Bill? The question that Conservative Members are asking is why the Government did not know when the Bill was published that the telecommunications industry would be unhappy about being regulated. A White Paper to be published in the autumn will deal with the possibility of regulating the telecommunications industry, and communications and broadcasting in general. Why did Ministers not know about the White Paper before the Bill was published?
      Mrs. Liddell: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has a defective memory. He perhaps forgets his offer to assist the Government to remove the telecommunications clauses. He did that specifically because, following changes in the industry, a second White Paper was likely to consider overall telecommunications issues. Can he confirm whether he remembers his offer to help?
      Mr. Gibb: The Minister is very tetchy today. She fails to realise that there is a difference between supporting the Government in their attempt to remove the clauses on telecommunications and asking questions about their policy and approach. She should not be so sensitive to criticisms from Members of Parliament. We supported the Government in removing those clauses in Committee.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that my first speech in Committee, and others that I made before the Government removed the telecommunications clauses, urged them to do just that. Before they removed the clauses, Ministers explained why they were necessary—
      996
      but the House and the telecommunications and water industries have not had a proper answer to the questions that my hon. Friend asks. Our memories are certainly not defective.
      Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those are important questions, because Ministers must have known that a White Paper on telecommunications and broadcasting would be published this autumn. Why, then, did they include in the Bill all the measures about regulating the telecommunications industry, when the regulatory framework will have to be revamped in a couple of years' time? If they say that they did not know about the White Paper, it is disgraceful that Ministers do not know what is going on in other parts of the Government.
      When the clauses were removed, the Minister said that the Government did not think that the telecommunications industry was concerned, but the industry did not know that a White Paper was forthcoming. That was announced in a press release on 4 February. The Government could not have known that the industry was concerned, because the industry did not know about the White Paper. That argument is nonsense. It was incumbent on the Government to inform the industry about the White Paper. Apart from that, the representations made before 4 February made it clear that the Government envisaged re-regulation of broadcasting in due course.
      In response to my intervention, the Minister said that the proposals for the transfer scheme for public electricity suppliers were mere consequential amendments. That is a new definition of the term "consequential amendment". I thought that it meant changing references to sections and to the repeals set out in schedules. However, a substantive set of clauses will be required to cover the tax consequences of having to split up the companies that supply and distribute electricity, and we would have liked the opportunity to amend them in Committee. All the subsidiaries involved in the distribution of electricity will have to be separate from those involved in its supply. That means that there will be substantial changes to the ownership of contracts. Taxation consequences will also flow from the split, so the provisions are important. If the Minister claims that they will involve mere consequential amendments, will she spell out in more detail what she means by the other so-called consequential amendments that will be tabled in the other place?
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I appreciate the fact that the Government intend Report to be a tidying-up exercise to follow on from the work of the Standing Committee, of which I was not a member. However, we have an opportunity to revisit some of the basic issues about whether it was wise to decapitate the Bill and remove some of its key elements.
      I take a view opposite to that of Conservative Members. I believe that the original structure had much to commend it. There was a good reason for treating the telecommunications, water and energy sectors together. The underlying economic principles for all those industries are the same. In each case, there was an understandable wish to move from monopoly regulation to competition, which is encroaching on all those industries. It is being encouraged, and rightly so. However, in each sector, there was a natural monopoly deriving from the electricity and gas grid, the water

      997
      mains system—the backbone system—and the telecommunications system. It seemed eminently sensible to apply a common set of regulatory principles to them all.
      The integrated Bill was welcome at the time because it made two significant advances, one of which was to introduce a higher level of social and environmental protection. Consumer groups and those concerned about the environment widely welcomed that. The second advance provided more statutory consumer protection. In the integrated Bill as originally conceived, all those sectors enjoyed additional levels of regulatory protection.
      We do not know what will happen now, especially to telecommunications. A White Paper and a Green Paper will be issued, and there will be a new regulatory structure dealing with communications as a whole—probably in two years, although that is not certain. Will the Minister reassure us that the genuine advances in social and environmental obligations and consumer protection in the original Bill will remain in any new communications and water Bills? It is important not to go backwards as a result of the withdrawal of those key elements of the Bill.
      I am sure that the answer to my question is yes. However, I am slightly sceptical because I have dealt with other areas of regulation, especially in connection with the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and another Department strongly resisted incorporating social obligations such as those in the Utilities Bill. As an advance has been made, it is important to consolidate it.
      I wish to raise a further point about the method of reaching such a decision. Consumer groups have bruised feelings—as Ministers, I am sure, are aware—because when the Bill was originally introduced, they were assured that telecommunications would henceforth enjoy a much stronger system of consumer protection. Many of them were delighted to hear that. Indeed, they issued enthusiastic press releases saying how much they welcomed it—having been encouraged to do so, I believe, by the Department of Trade and Industry. They were then told, without being consulted, that telecommunications were being withdrawn from the Bill. No reason was given for that, but of course the consumer groups were well aware of the pressures from the mobile telephone operators that led to the withdrawal.
      Consumer groups are extremely anxious about the way in which the decision was made over their heads. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that the next stage in dealing with telecommunications and water will bring those groups back into the fold, and that they will consult them properly, as they have been overridden and treated rather shoddily.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall begin with a declaration of interest. During the passage of the Bill, I have had to give fewer and fewer such declarations as the Government remove more and more from the measure. However, the Bill still makes provision for telecommunications, in which I have some major interests. I am a professional adviser to the Telecommunication Managers Association and my family and I have shares in the gas, water, electricity and telecommunications industries.
      In debating this group of amendments, we have an opportunity to probe the Government on the direction in which telecommunications and water are going. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
      998
      (Mr. Gibb) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) discussed telecommunications, as did the Minister to a certain extent.
      However, little has been said about water. I do not quite share the view of Conservative Front Benchers on the necessity or desirability of having a lot of consumer bodies included in a measure that concerns the electricity and gas industries, as I believe that the market is working extremely well. There have been dramatic examples of companies that do not respond to their customers and, in such cases, consumers can go elsewhere. Certainly, the consumer is starting to become king in telecommunications.
      By the time that the Bill is enacted, that market will be working even better. The fixed line—the thing that allowed BT to have a virtual monopoly—is increasingly being replaced by mobile telecommunications equipment. Increasingly, in the gas, electricity and telecommunications markets, consumers have a real ability to exercise the ultimate sanction against a supplier—telling the company that they will not use it any more, because they can go to another and get a better deal.
      4.30 pm
      We have never received a proper explanation of why water was removed from the Bill. The Government were, from the start, reticent about discussing the relevant clauses and they are now having to remove all record of water from the Bill. We understand that there was a turf war with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the House is entitled to know what the Government intend to do. We understand that Government do not intend to introduce new legislation during the lifetime of the current Government, but intend only to produce a draft proposal at some point in the future, and a Conservative Government will have to decide whether or not to proceed with it. The water industry and water consumers want to know what the Government have in mind. Ministers must share with the House the reasons why it was so difficult to manage those matters and give consumers proper protection.
      The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe says that the Conservatives are the friends of the fat cats. Currently, the water industry has a regulator who decides prices after negotiations in which the water companies all say that the new prices will be impossible. Afterwards, they come back and say that, even though the pricing structure was impossible, they have made massively increased profits. Having promised the electorate that they would do something about it, the Government have failed to tackle that problem.
      It is strange that the right hon. Lady says that the Opposition are trying to delay matters; in fact, two days were originally set aside for Report, but we are having only a half-day debate on the subject. At no time during proceedings on the Bill have the Opposition attempted to filibuster or delay matters. We want only to get on to the real issues, but the real issues have at no time been addressed.
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend will be aware that any delays in Committee occurred because the Committee had to wait for amendments to be drafted by the Government draftsmen.
      Mr. Bruce: Yes, indeed—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I see the Government Whip,

      999
      the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), who was assiduous in his duties throughout the passage of the Bill through Committee. Perhaps I should put on record how pleased I was by the number of early afternoons I was given. Often, when I expected to be in Committee from 4.30 to 7 pm and to return after dinner, we were told after an hour or so that we would be sent home early because yet another set of Government amendments was not ready.
      We did a workmanlike job. I rarely bestow praise on the Liberal Democrats, but I have to say that, occasionally, they turned up. A whole group of amendments was lost because no Liberal Democrat Member was there to move it, however. Perhaps more spectacular was the fact that, when only one Liberal Democrat was there to call "Aye" on a certain group of amendments, the Government allowed the amendments to go through, which shows that they had lost control. Of course, tonight, when we consider a later group of amendments, we will be asked to overturn the Liberal Democrats' victory, and I hope that they intend to protest loudly when that happens.
      I digress, however, and I must not. We are in a strange position. The telecommunications industry, the provisions relating to which are about to be deleted from the Bill, has just experienced the highest stealth taxation endured by any industry or body anywhere. In the current round, bidding has reached £25 billion, and that money will come from telecommunication consumers and industry. We can all delight that the Treasury will be stuffed with such money, but the clauses that we are about to delete might have enabled that money to be used to encourage telecommunications and to ensure that the United Kingdom is the best place in which to do e-business. That issue should have been addressed.
      Sir Robert Smith: I rise to speak briefly, on the back of the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), about the future for telecommunications users in the event that the new clause and the amendments are agreed to, and particularly on the £25 billion going out of the telecommunications sector. That affects not only consumers, but the future development of the infrastructure and technology, as well as how quickly and universally the industry develops.
      That brings me to an earlier point that the hon. Gentleman made about relying on competition to protect consumers of telecommunications. As a lay consumer of telecommunications, I do not find the market that clear in terms of providing effective protection and an easy choice of suppliers. Competition has not yet reached rural areas. The cellular communications network is quite well developed in urban areas, but areas such as mine have only the land line. The worry is that the free flow of unregulated competition in the early days of mobile communications may have undermined the infrastructure throughout the network. If the Bill is amended, how will the telecommunications consumer be protected in future?
      Mrs. Liddell: It is interesting that the official Opposition are much more interested in procedural matters than in the Bill. I suspect that that is because the Bill concentrates on the protection of the consumer, and, in certain parts, on the most disadvantaged consumers.
      1000
      We have debated on a number of occasions the Government's reasons for dropping telecommunications and water from the Bill. I shall not rehearse in their entirety today because that would take up the time of the House unnecessarily. On Second Reading and in Committee we discussed how the telecommunications industry is one of rapid change.
      A few weeks ago, I was told that there are three speeds in modern life. There is political speed, which is slow; commercial speed, which we always used to think of as fast; and there is internet speed, where a year can be reduced to a few weeks. In this House we do not operate at internet speed, but the telecommunications industry does.
      On Second Reading and in Committee we also debated the changes in the industry, and the fact that it would be necessary to revisit telecom regulations to ensure that changes in the industry, some of which we cannot foretell at the moment, are taken into account.
      After the Bill's publication, the industry, no doubt having reflected on the issues raised in the debate, came to the Department to express its concern about the prospect of two separate sets of regulations over a short period, and one can understand that. There would have been one set of changes now and another set when further communications legislation was implemented. Removing telecommunications from the Bill was perceived as a common-sense move, especially as a communications White Paper was on the stocks. That White Paper involves not only the Department of Trade and Industry but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
      Mr. Gibb: What is the Government's intention for the regulation of the telecommunications sector, which will be outlined in the White Paper to be published in the autumn? Will the Minister take the same approach to telecommunications as she took to electricity, or will she bring a lighter touch to bear on the regulation of a fast-moving sector?
      Mrs. Liddell: I shall deal with that later, because it relates to points that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made. I shall wait until I tackle those points rather than giving a disjointed response.
      The water industry expressed anxieties about the possibility of further regulatory changes in the Water Bill. The Queen's Speech stated that a Water Bill would be introduced, and that its changes would be additional to those in the Utilities Bill. It is common sense to make sure that the industry does not have to change the regulatory structure twice.
      Hon. Members have asked about our commitment to the future shape of telecommunications. The Government remain committed to the proposals in the Bill. In all the utility sectors, we want to secure a more transparent regulatory framework, an independent voice for consumers and a stronger focus on protecting their interests. Those principles will apply in the separate water and telecommunications measures. Some modification is possible. That is logical—I am sure that hon. Members would not wish us to ignore the views of consumers and the industry in the consultation process. However, we intend the principles of the Utilities Bill to apply to future legislation.

      1001
      We intend to publish a communications White Paper later this year. It is too early to say when legislation will follow, not least because of the pressures on the House. It is not for me or anybody in the Chamber to dictate the contents of the forward programme for the next Session.
      Mr. Gibb: Far be it for me to make a suggestion—but I shall do so anyway. Perhaps the Government could present a slightly less burdensome legislative programme. They might then discover that their Bills did not require 300 or 400 Government amendments.
      Mrs. Liddell: When a Government take over after 18 years of incompetence, a heavy legislative programme is inevitable. We went to the country with specific commitments; the country responded, and we have to undo the mistakes of 18 years of Conservative rule. We therefore have a heavy legislative programme.
      The prize for removing telecommunications and water from the Bill is that the industries will be subject to only one set of legislative changes. We all acknowledge that that is important. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to the auction in mobile telecommunications. That is a matter for other Departments, and I would therefore prefer to leave it to them to respond. However, it emphasises the significance of the changes in mobile telephony. It is vital that we respond in legislation to the changes in the marketplace.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am a little confused, because I served on the Committee that considered the Bill, which provided for the Government to auction their radio spectrum. The Bill was a Department of Trade and Industry measure. Although the Treasury collects the money, surely we are considering a Department of Trade and Industry matter. We would therefore expect a senior DTI Minister to have an opinion about what should happen to the money.
      4.45 pm
      Mrs. Liddell: Given that those matters are being discussed, I am surprised that someone as experienced as the hon. Gentleman suggests that we might care to discuss them in detail this afternoon.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about a statutory consumer council for telecoms. The Government's view is that a statutory consumer council would be the most appropriate mechanism to meet the central aim of giving consumers an effective voice in the telecoms sector. The White Paper, which will be published in the autumn, will have a much wider ambit and will consider issues such as broadcasting. It will introduce different matters such as the interface with content regulation. Although the central aim remains the same, its manifestation may be different, as I am sure he recognises.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the consumer groups feel aggrieved that the first remarks that they heard about telecoms and water being removed were made in the Chamber, but I am sure that, on reflection, he will appreciate that that is the appropriate way in which to deal with such matters. Given that the Bill had already been committed to a Standing Committee, it would not have been appropriate for any announcement to be made outside the House or for any consultation on those matters to take place. We acted as expeditiously as possible to inform the House after the decision had be taken.
      1002
      The new clause is important. To an extent, it will tidy the Bill and enhance it because people, especially the public, will find it easier to use. At the beginning of the debate, it was suggested that more substantial changes might be proposed in another place. The Government do not intend to introduce further substantial changes. Amendments will be tabled in the other place, but they will all be based on issues that have been raised already.
      Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that provision will be made for transfer schemes for public electricity suppliers?
      Mrs. Liddell: Yes.
      These measures represent the remaining stages of the Government's preparation of the Bill. My anxiety—I hope that it is shared by Members across the House—is to ensure that consumers gain the benefits of the Bill as quickly as possible.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION
      '. The Secretary of State shall, at least once per year, publish an analysis of the proportion of electricity produced from each type of generation over the previous 12 months, together with a statement by him of the Government's policy in relation to each of those types of generation.'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gibb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 28, in clause 48, page 48, line 36, at end insert—
      ';—

      (c) to facilitate the development of embedded generation;

      (d) to support the achievement of the Government's national renewable energy targets by facilitating small—scale renewable generation through net metering.'.

      Government amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Gibb: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the Government have a coherent energy policy. It would require the Secretary of State to publish each year an analysis of the proportion of electricity generated from each source. About 30 per cent. of our electricity comes from gas; about 30 per cent. from nuclear power; and another 30 per cent. from coal. The remaining 10 per cent. is made up of electricity imported through the interconnector with France and renewables.
      On Monday, it became obvious—if is was not already—that the Government do not have a clear energy policy or long-term strategy. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will set that strategy out, for the benefit of the House and the public. The Government's last known pronouncement on energy policy generally was their energy White Paper, published in October 1998, but, as everyone knows, it was simply an exercise in ex post facto rationalisation of a politically driven decision to impose a moratorium on building new gas-fired power stations.

      1003
      The justification for that decision was based on the bogus notion that companies would invest hundreds of millions of pounds in new gas-fired plant simply in response to temporarily high electricity prices, resulting from the fact that the electricity pool was not the right mechanism for the electricity market as it had developed since privatisation.
      Given that the industry has known for many years that revised electricity trading arrangements were being developed, it was clear that prices would fall in the medium term. Investors will not invest on the basis of the price of a product in the short term, so the suggestion that there needed to be a moratorium to prevent investors from responding to this short-term price hike is absolute nonsense, and everyone in the industry knows that. No doubt that is why the Secretary of State took the earliest opportunity to lift the moratorium.
      It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether she has received legal advice about the legality of the moratorium—the stricter consents policy. I should be grateful for a confirmation of that.
      The notion that all the problems highlighted in the White Paper will be solved when the new electricity trading arrangements come into effect in October is bogus. The White Paper implied that the Government want to see the new electricity trading arrangements working to ensure that they deliver lower prices before lifting the stricter consents policy. However, the Secretary of State has now announced that the moratorium will be lifted as soon as NETA become law this summer, if the Bill gets Royal Assent. This legislation will be in place by October.
      Even the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry says:
      We do not believe that this moratorium on section 36…consents…will assist the coal industry in the short run…we look to the Government to ensure that…the moratorium is lifted as soon as practicable.
      The moratorium was introduced by the Secretary of State's predecessors to pacify Labour constituencies and Members with mining interests. It is a policy based on the internal politics of the Labour party rather than on what is in the best interests of Britain's energy needs. It is a piecemeal, ad hoc policy, rather than part of an overall energy strategy.
      The new clause is designed to help the Government to focus on developing a proper long-term energy policy for Britain. We need a statement from the Minister about how the Government believe Britain's energy needs can be met, by what sources and how that ties in with the Government's Kyoto commitments and their domestic commitment of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.
      That brings me to the great deceit in the Government's energy policy as enunciated in their White Paper, which states that the Government would expect to see a decline in CO2 emissions from the power generation sector over the period covered by the Kyoto protocol, even on scenarios that retain the gas moratorium in 2008–12. Carbon dioxide levels have already fallen considerably below the 1990 levels.
      The key issue about the 2008–12 Kyoto protocol target date is that from 2010 onwards—and even earlier—the United Kingdom will have significantly reduced its nuclear
      1004
      capacity as Britain continues to decommission Magnox nuclear power stations. Of course the Government will meet the 2008–12 target date for reducing CO2 emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels, but the key issue is what happens from 2012 onwards. The whole of the Government's strategy is aimed at that date. They have given little thought to what should happen beyond 2012.
      On the basis of the Government's energy policy, it looks as though CO2 emissions will begin to rise from 2012. They need to set out their policy on nuclear power as more and more of the older stations are decommissioned. Will they authorise the building of new nuclear plant? If not, how do they intend to ensure that CO2 targets are met without the nuclear component? What is their policy on this matter? No doubt the right hon. Lady will say that she has received no requests from the nuclear industry to build new nuclear plant, because at the moment it does not regard doing so as economically worth while. The Kyoto commitments, however, impose on the market an artificial constraint to which Governments must respond. That is why there are provisions, in the Bill and elsewhere, that artificially nudge and encourage the free market to produce power by methods that it would not otherwise use, in order to help the Government and the country as a whole to meet the carbon dioxide emissions targets.
      Nuclear energy plays a key role in fulfilling our carbon dioxide commitments, and in keeping our commitments at low levels. It is essential for the Government to respond to what happens when the nuclear power stations begin to be decommissioned. What is their long-term policy on nuclear energy?
      What is the Government's policy on the granting of section 36 consents after October 2000? Will everyone who applies to the Department of Trade and Industry to build a gas-fired power station be given permission, now that the stricter consents policy is to be lifted in October, or will the Government apply different criteria—the same criteria that enabled them to support the building of the station at Baglan bay? Will those criteria now obtain across the country, or will the Government simply bring back the stricter consents policy in another guise? We need a statement from them.
      In preparing an application to the DTI, industry incurs considerable costs. It must know what it is up against—what hurdles it needs to convince the Government about. Indeed, it needs to know that there is no point in applying for a section 36 consent in certain circumstances, and it needs to know precisely what those circumstances are.
      What proportion of Britain's energy needs do the Government expect to be met by gas, coal and nuclear energy in 2020? What proportion do they expect to come from renewables? We need to know what they have in mind for each of those sources of electricity. If the target percentage for renewables is met, will that be sufficient for Britain to continue to show a decline in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation?
      Those are the questions that the Government have so far refused to answer—or, more likely, are unable to answer. However, they need to be answered if industry is to be able to plan ahead. The Minister now has a chance to set out her energy policy: if she is on top of her brief, she should not find that very difficult. Will she give us, for example, her Department's estimate of the likely proportions of electricity generation by gas, coal and

      1005
      nuclear energy in 2005, 2010 and 2020? What is her estimate of the reserves of discovered and undiscovered gas in the North sea?
      Mrs. Liddell: How can we know about undiscovered reserves?
      Mr. Gibb: That is a revelation. There are estimates of undiscovered gas reserves in the North sea. An appendix to the Minister's own energy White Paper gives figures for the likely number of years of undiscovered gas reserves in the North sea. Companies will not investigate and prove that gas reserves exist until they are needed; they start to "firm up" on where reserves are only once the figure falls to a certain number of years.
      Those are important questions about a vital area of industrial and environmental policy. We await the Minister's response with great interest.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: New clause 2, amendment No. 28—which stands in my name and those of two of my hon. Friends—and Government amendment No. 3 are closely related.
      Almost for the first time during the debates that we have had in and around the House, I find myself in substantial agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). The United Kingdom lacks a national energy policy. That lack has not cropped up suddenly; it is long-standing. For a long time, decisions have been either deferred or made on a short-term basis, and the long-term investment strategy that is so clearly needed has not materialised—not least because industry has been given no clear signals or pointers towards the direction in which it should go.
      5 pm
      At the lowest level, new clause 2 introduces a sensible monitoring procedure, so that the Government's intentions can be clarified and the energy industry's performance in relation to the Government's intentions can be determined.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will probably recall that, in Committee, I tabled an amendment on the diversity of supply. We have all been accused of having short memories. I wonder whether he remembers that Ministers resisted giving special treatment to fuels, particularly coal, yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Monday and the Prime Minister today at Prime Minister's Question Time specifically said that they wanted to help coal to have such a position in the marketplace. Now that it is Wednesday, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would like to hear from Ministers exactly what their policy is on fuel supplies, given that they have changed policy on that issue so many times in the past few weeks?
      Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I have received no advice on what the Government's energy policy for Wednesday is. As far as I know, it has not been issued, but, as he says, it would be interesting to hear that. The point is well illustrated by the Government's announcements this week. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was with us a few
      1006
      minutes ago, is not here at the moment because he clearly has a strong constituency interest in the future protection of the coal industry and I know that he welcomed the announcement.
      On overall energy policy for the UK, may I pick up some of the issues that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton outlined about the share that different fuels will have in the electricity market? It is clear that there will be substantial changes not just in the next 10 years, but in the next 20 and 30 years. No one would have predicted 30 or even 10 years ago that gas would be the fuel of choice for generating electricity. It is difficult to be sure what the fuel of choice will be in 10 years' time. Energy policy needs to set some markers, which are hinted at in the Bill, particularly through its support in one form or another for the renewable energy generation industry, but the policy is not set out strongly enough.
      I accept that one could not insert a new clause that included an energy policy, but the hon. Gentleman has usefully introduced a mechanism for that policy to become more transparent and self-evident. Should he press the matter to a vote, we will be happy to support him.
      Amendment No. 28, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, amends clause 48, whereas Government amendment No. 3 amends clause 60. Amendment No. 28 places two additional duties on electricity distributors: first, to facilitate the provision of embedded generation within the transmission and distribution network; and, secondly, to facilitate small-scale renewable generation through the implementation of net metering.
      Government amendment No. 3 is to reverse the amendment that was accepted in Committee: amendment No. 745. Were we to accept the Government amendment, we would delete Labour's manifesto commitment to renewables. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to comment on that.
      The two amendments pull in diametrically opposite directions. I shall confine my remarks primarily to amendment No. 28, which relates to the additional duties that we seek to impose on distributors within the electricity market.
      The Bill has some laudable aims. It certainly seeks to liberate the forces of competition and to bring benefits to consumers. Liberal Democrat Members have, when appropriate, supported those objectives. The Government claim that the Bill will produce lower prices, and there is some evidence to underpin that claim. It could also produce better service for consumers, as competition hots up and competitors are forced to provide better prices and service, which consumers will increasingly value.
      Mr. Gibb: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the evidence showing that the long-term price of electricity is decreasing—it does seem to have decreased because of the proposed new electricity trading arrangements—but I am surprised that he believes that the Bill will increase competition. The Bill specifically demotes the promotion of competition to a second-order objective, whereas it is currently a prime, first-order objective.
      Mr. Stunell: I shall have something to say in a moment about the difficulties that new entrants may face under the new arrangements. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made a useful point.

      1007
      The market can be used to reduce prices and to improve service, and it is a sensible mechanism for achieving those objectives. However, there are problems—which the Bill recognises, at least partly—with unrestrained and unregulated competition. One of the problems is that social and environmental obligations are not easily fulfilled in a completely open-market, competitive economy.
      There are some specific situations in which competition is a poor driver in achieving the Government's desired results, the first of which is when profit is increased by selling more product at a higher price. As competition can keep prices down, the argument against competition on the basis of higher price is defeated. However, competition will increase sales volumes. In a fiercely competitive environment, more profit is made by increased sales, not decreased sales.
      The electricity market has a hierarchy comprising the levels of generation, transmission, distribution and supply. At every level, profit is increased by selling more product to the next level down in the hierarchy. Each level certainly gains value from selling more product to consumers. They all want more, not fewer sales. Their market-driven imperative is wholly hostile to the idea of decreasing the amount of energy that they produce and supply and to the idea of ensuring that their consumers use energy efficiently.
      Amendment No. 28 recognises the fact that competition is entirely hostile to diversification in the sources of energy used to generate the electricity used by consumers. The market mechanism will not deliver diversification of supply. Therefore, if the intention of public policy is to achieve better conservation, greater efficiency in consumers' energy use and more renewable products in the market, the regulatory framework has explicitly to state those objectives. If the framework is not explicit, it will not achieve those objectives.
      Interestingly, one of the companies that responded to the DTI's own consultation on licensing changes stated:
      The obligation to maintain an efficient distribution system potentially conflicts with the proposed obligation to facilitate competition in generation and supply…distribution networks have been laid down in a co-ordinated fashion over many years…each proposal for embedded generation must be considered individually and on an economic basis, rather than under any kind of blanket obligation.
      In other words, those whom the market—and, currently, the Bill—requires to facilitate embedded generation are precisely those who have no interest in facilitating such generation and for whom the market is not a valid implement in achieving the objective.
      Therefore, embedded generation—that is, generation that is at the lower end of the transmission and distribution hierarchy, at a lower voltage and nearer to the consumer—is in no way facilitated. Nor is net metering, whereby a small generator can supply electricity to and receive it from the distribution system, and pay a net price for it.
      Amendment No.28 and the additional duties that it would impose on the distribution industry would lead to cost reductions rather than increases. However, it would not result in increased profits for the distributing companies, so they would have no incentive. The cost reductions would result from lower transmission losses on the electricity generated and, in the longer term, a reduced
      1008
      requirement for major investment in trunk electricity transmission. It would also result in fewer sales by those who are already in the market.
      Our amendment could have been written by the DTI, because the DTI's consultation document on "Electricity Network Management Issues" states:
      In the medium and longer term
      the aim is to
      encourage distribution companies to design networks so as to facilitate the accommodation of future embedded generation.
      The amendment would reduce costs to the consumer in the short and the long term. It would also conform to the Department's intention in respect of the promotion of renewable energy. The losers would be the existing generation, transmission, distribution and supply players. That is why the provision needs to be within the regulatory system and not left to the market.
      I have a number of questions which I hope that the Minister will address.
      Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I share the hon. Gentleman's aspiration in respect of the promotion of embedded generation, but his amendment appears to be in advance of Government policy. In Committee, the Minister stated that
      a working group of representatives from the Government, Ofgem and the industry is examining the issues that surround embedded generation.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,14 March 2000; c. 486.]
      Should we not wait for that report instead of trying to amend the Bill today?
      Mr. Stunell: I have no problem with being in advance of the Government in respect of energy policy. In fact, it would be a major gymnastic feat to be behind them. Nor do I have any difficulty with proposing an amendment that conforms with the DTI's thinking, if not with its willingness to proceed, that goes some way towards providing a mechanism for the Department to develop its energy policy and, perhaps most importantly, that brings clearly into focus the fact that the market has value, but not in delivering those particular objectives.
      I hope that the Minister accepts that embedded generators have serious problems in gaining fair access to the grid and to the market. I have heard a number of anecdotes from those who seek to be embedded generators about the difficulties that they face in dealing with the existing players in the market.
      If the Government feel that the amendment is premature and that they do not wish to proceed with it, will they say specifically how, through legislation, they plan to open the door for embedded generation? If now is not the time, as the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) suggested, when should it happen? How can we ensure that the incentive for existing players in the electricity market to make more money by sending more electricity through their wires to suppliers is counteracted by a regulatory system that promotes conservation, efficiency and the introduction of renewable players at the most appropriate level?
      5.15 pm
      The Minister has an obligation to answer those questions, in terms of this debate, but I hope that in

      1009
      default of doing so she will feel—as the Government felt in Committee with amendment No. 745—that she can accept that amendment No. 28 conforms with the Labour party's intention and the Government's declared policy. I shall not comment on Government amendment No. 3, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From a personal point of view, I might say that the debate on that subject was one of the high spots of the Committee and it would be a great pity if it were lost at this time.
      Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that I raised several issues connected with embedded generation and CHP throughout the Committee stage. I was concerned that the Government did not have enough weapons in their armoury to deal with renewables and embedded generation. I am still worried that the Government's armoury is deficient and I have a few questions for my right hon. Friend, the answers to which will—I hope—allay my fears.
      In some areas, embedded generation faces problems with access to the grid. I understand that the working party mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) will address those network management problems. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the working party will consider the issues of embedded generation and ensure that distributors will have the proper incentives to facilitate its development?
      Net metering is well established in the United States of America and elsewhere. If the Government will not accept net metering, will they outline their reasons for that? As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, the current market is about volume distribution, and several of the embedded generations are by small-scale operators. They face a barrier to entering the market because of the difference in volume. How will the regulators remove that barrier if net metering is not made compulsory?
      The CHP and renewables industry has strongly welcomed the Government's approach, so when it makes criticisms they are usually valid, unlike some of the spurious criticism we heard earlier, especially from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) who repudiates his own manifesto when he condemns the telecommunications auction.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. White: No. Will the Minister ensure that the recommendations by the working group will be made in time for amendments to be tabled in the other place?
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made some sensible points, but he let himself down by attacking the Opposition. I realise that one has to show loyalty to one's own side and the Whips, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) speaks, as I do, in disappointment with the Bill. We expected rather more on renewables from the Government.
      I should say that I am a vice-president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, which is not a paid task nor very onerous. I am also vice-chairman of the Parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group, and I see that the chairman is in his place. Perhaps he will
      1010
      also speak about how the Bill is a missed opportunity for renewables, because the Government could have done so much more. Are the Government really serious about meeting the Rio and Kyoto targets and about reducing carbon emissions and tackling global warming, which is—as I am sure we all agree—an enormous problem?
      The Government are putting lots of money into coal, which will never be a clean fuel, but they could have done much more for renewables and I hope that when the Minister winds up this debate she will tackle that issue. Many people want to know what the Government will do to encourage renewables apart from talking about how much they would like to see 5 per cent. of energy coming from renewables by 2003 and 10 per cent. by a later date.
      The particular question that many people have raised with me is that of net metering and it beggars belief that the Government have not been willing to take that issue on in this major Bill. Net metering should surely have been included. We heard from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East that net metering is much in demand in the US. Why cannot we start introducing it in this country? It might bring down the price of photovoltaics and make them more attractive for installation on roofs that cover a small area.
      What exactly is the Government's problem with net metering? I see no problem at all with it.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not amazing that the Government constantly want to bring in new legislation that has no purpose? The Bill is a case in point. A small group of people says that the current system is not working properly. The Government have set their face against all the sensible amendments tabled in favour of net metering.
      Mr. Robathan: I agree. I had hoped that I might agree with the Government about renewable energy, but I am disappointed because they have not done more. The previous Conservative Government introduced the non-fossil fuel obligation, but this Government could do more to support renewable energy. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry talked a couple of days ago about combined power and heat. The fact that he got the phrase wrong was a little sad.
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend was not a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill, so he may not have known that the Opposition tabled an amendment to what is now clause 60, which deals with renewables. We wanted to add combined heat and power to the definition of renewable sources, as we believed that it made sense to add that to the percentage of renewables that the Government are requiring suppliers to purchase. That would have been a real boost to the combined heat and power industry. My hon. Friend will be disappointed to know that the Government resisted that amendment.
      Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I wanted to be a member of the Committee but, given that it sat 22 times, I might have regretted it.

      1011
      In this world of joined-up government, the Government have excluded combined heat and power from the climate change levy. Why do they not believe that CHP is a remarkably good way of generating energy more efficiently?
      Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is known for his interest in renewables and in combined heat and power. Will he explain how those elements of CHP that derive from fossil fuels are renewable?
      Mr. Robathan: That is a good point, but it rests on semantics. Combined heat and power is a much more efficient way of generating energy—
      Mrs. Liddell: It uses coal too.
      Mr. Robathan: I understand how the power of CHP is generated, but it contributes to the carbon emission targets from power generation set at Rio and Kyoto. That is why CHP seems a sensible way forward. The Minister shakes her head, but it would be helpful if she could explain by what other means the Government's targets for combined heat and power generation will be met.
      We should encourage the development of renewable energies now. An enormous industrial potential exists that we might be able to meet. For instance, a representative of a firm called Solar Century has been in touch with me on several occasions with some really good ideas on photovoltaics. I am not plugging that company, but some encouragement in that sector might allow Britain to have its own industry. We used to be rather good at producing wind generators, but it has all gone to the continent because the industry was not given sufficient support in this country—apart from on the Floor of the House of Commons. The story is the same with fuel cells.
      The Minister said that CHP was not renewable. Of course it is not necessarily generated by renewables, but micro-CHP could be of enormous benefit in this country, where it could be suitable for 4 to 6 million homes. However, the Bill does not deal with it, and so does not encourage it. We should encourage such methods of electricity generation, as they would benefit the environment. That is what I would think of as joined-up government.
      I understand that the net metering debate was lost in Committee, and I shall not dwell on it. However, it would surely be sensible if I were to install in my house what amounted to a small power station, for me to be able to sell electricity for the same sum for which I bought it from the grid. That would not cost the Government, or anyone else, anything, but would reduce the amount of energy that we need to generate from fossil fuels. Why will the Government not open their ears? I see Labour Members nodding at that, but I shall not name them. What we propose is a sensible method to encourage renewable energy and small-scale schemes in a way that the Bill does not.
      The Bill is a missed opportunity on renewables. It has been a bit of a mess all round. It once covered four utilities; it now covers only two. I appeal to the Government to consider, even at the 11 th hour and in the other place, the inclusion of some encouragement towards
      1012
      renewable energy, which might result in better take-up of renewable energy schemes and help the Government to meet their stated targets.
      Sir Robert Smith: I have a constituency interest in the amendments, and I am also vice-chairman of the all-party offshore oil and gas industry group, which is committed to renewables and their potential to provide a future for the industry. Constituents have told me that if we encourage renewables, the industry has the skills to develop offshore wind technology to which our country is well suited. The industry has the infrastructure and experience that come from working offshore, and, being out of sight, it gets over many environmental and local concerns about the positioning of wind farms. It is also easier to farm the wind offshore, because air currents are more stable and generation is more reliable and less directionally dependent.
      The construction industry and others in the doldrums as a result of the downturn in the oil industry could also face a better future. The oil industry is used to tying platforms and cables back to the shore and would be well placed to develop offshore wind technology. It would be an added benefit for the United Kingdom if we led the way in generation, because we could develop it as an export industry. As with the oil industry, if we have a home base, an export market can be exploited.
      Given the structure of our energy markets, it would be sad if that never happened. There are entry costs because of the barriers to entering the technology, but when it is up and running, the costs of production will start to fall. My analysis of where profits come from may differ slightly from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), because profits can be made even if the price stays the same and supply does not increase, but production costs are reduced.
      Entering the market for offshore wind generation could be both attractive and commercially viable, but the Government need an incentive, which is why they should resist their own amendment No. 3. They should keep pressure on themselves to ensure that the environment encourages development so that we can cross the entry barriers and see generation as a growing industry that can build on its experience in the North sea.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Three quite different provisions are before us, although it is clearly for the convenience of the House that they can be discussed together. I shall make a short speech on each of them because the critical issues that we wish to revisit are important.
      New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, is intended to tease out where the Government are going on diversity of supply and what their energy policy is. The Government constantly say that they have an energy policy and that they intend to do all sorts of things in line both with Kyoto and with planning the economy as Labour Governments love to do.
      I have been genuinely confused during the period of our discussions in Committee about the announcement made on Monday, and backed up by the Prime Minister, about the coal industry.
      5.30 pm
      Labour Members were surprised that a free-marketeer, right-wing Conservative such as myself should table

      1013
      amendments that would ensure that industries such as coal could be protected under the Bill. We now find that an authority will decide how electricity is generated. If the Government are sincere about the Utilities Bill and really want to take decisions as to how electricity should be produced for the good of the consumer, the climate and so on—although they are concentrating only on gas and electricity—and if they want to intervene in markets to decide that a particular fuel or technology should be used in order to reduce carbon dioxide, then the means to manipulate the market should be included in the measure.
      In Committee, I was pleased that the Government rejected that approach. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who represents a south Wales constituency, referred to the harmful effects of coal. He suggested that to continue to try to support the coal industry was a terribly old Labour policy, because of the harm caused to the environment and to people's health by burning coal. That was surprising. By "Yes, Minister" criteria, it was a brave statement. He was fortunate that the general press did not report the Committee proceedings on that occasion, although there were some good exchanges in which we were able to tease out the issues.
      However, lo and behold, a leak was made in the usual way—on Radio 4, where we hear Parliamentary announcements—that the Government would make a statement to the House that up to £100 million would be allocated, by some mechanism outside the Bill, to support coal mining and the continued use of coal. The price of coal would be kept down, so that it could be used for generating.
      We need to know whether the Government really want to establish such mechanisms. The Government should not be leaking announcements about their support for the coal industry with an electoral bribe of £100 million, just because the industry is in Labour areas and they know that they will lose hundreds of seats in the local elections. We should be determining what the Government's policy is, based on the amendments before the House and those tabled in Committee.
      Most of us would accept that, as the Labour Government have constituency interests in the coal-mining industry and as they have criticised previous Governments for allowing that industry to decline—as did many Back-Bench Conservative Members—they would include in the Bill provisions to protect the interests of their constituents in mining areas. However, those provisions are not in the Bill.
      Although the Government will not tell us what they want, our new clause would offer a simple mechanism whereby, at least every year, a report would be produced of what they had done, with details of their possible interventions in the market.
      If I had decided to sell gas to an electricity generator and was undermined by the Government's offering the generator £100 million to use coal, under an improved pricing structure, I should be most annoyed. Having made that announcement, the Government should put their money where their mouth is—the policies should be up front. If they believe they have an energy policy, they should accept the new clause; they should produce yearly reports on what has happened in the past and on their proposals for the future. When we made these points in Committee, Ministers said, "No, that would mean that we
      1014
      were picking winners," in that they would be deciding which fuels should be available, and that diversity of supply and having many different suppliers would no longer be part of the Government's policy. However, they have contradicted themselves.
      The Government suggest that they had a change of heart in respect of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations. I understand that they have been told by lawyers that they are subject to judicial review, and that if they had not changed their mind, they would be before the courts. They may even now find themselves before the courts, and lose a lot of money.
      The Bill could have provided mechanisms to allow the Government to intervene. I am not selling that point and I do not want them to intervene. Instead, I am saying that if they take certain actions they should do so by using legislation and be up front.
      Sir Robert Smith: One would hope that the Government had learned the lesson and understood that their policy was leading to the importing of cheap coal at the expense of British coal.
      Mr. Bruce: That may be the situation.
      I do not want to go too wide of the new clause and the amendments, but the Government might report to the House under the clause the action that had been taken to ensure that the unfair subsidy of coal in Germany and France was being acted upon. I had a short meeting with a former Conservative Minister who had been doing the sort of jobs that are now being undertaken by the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. He told me that towards the end of the Conservative Administration he had instituted proceedings to ask the Commission to inquire into the misuse of the subsidies, which were being used to restructure the German and French industries. They allowed those countries to lay off miners, for example. As I understand it, the inquiry has not taken place. We need to know regularly from the Government precisely what they are doing.
      The Government have come forward with a non-sensical climate change levy. It does not address the issues of reducing the amount of CO2 It seems that it is intended to make manufacturing expensive in this country, and perhaps we shall not burn so much fuel overall, or we might not use so much nuclear electricity, for example. However, that does not reduce the CO2 load in the atmosphere throughout the world. It merely sends jobs elsewhere.
      The clause would provide an auditing mechanism to ascertain how the climate change levy was working. I contend that it will not work, but a report would make the reason clear. That would have been an excellent way of bringing things forward.
      Amendment No. 28 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I found myself in the strange situation of being a friend of the Friends of the Earth. I have always made it clear to that organisation that I am not its friend. However, I continue to receive very pleasant faxes from it. I am telephoned by a charming young lady. Perhaps it is because she is so charming that I tell her that I will do my little best to help the Liberal Democrats in what they are trying to do.

      1015
      An increasing number of Conservatives are saying that there are market mechanisms and sensible ways of going forward. I am attracted by the amendment because, in effect, it is saying to every individual, "You can be your own generator." We have to pay a generator if he sends us electricity, and the amendment is saying that there should be a mechanism to allow electricity to be sent the other way. I am not saying that whenever amps are sent in the other direction the same prices should prevail, and the clause does not specifically ask for that. I am happy to take advice, but I believe that it would ensure that a mechanism is put in place that enables amps to be sent in the opposite direction.
      Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of our amendment is entirely correct. There is no direct requirement on the pricing or tariff structure in such a net metering arrangement.
      Mr. Bruce: I am most grateful for that explanation; it is appropriate to make that point clear.
      The number of Conservative Members on the Committee was limited. It is interesting that the Minister suggested that there were not many Conservatives on the Committee, and she is absolutely right. There were only five Conservative members on the Committee and, for the majority of the time, all five were present. Usually, 50 per cent. of the Liberal Democrats turned up, but occasionally none of them did. [Interruption.] The sedentary intervention is surprising, because—believe it or not—the same Ministers and their silent Back Benchers regularly seemed to think that I spoke too much about these issues and that I spent too long moving amendments that they did not want to discuss. I have some difficulty with that suggestion.
      Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman can explain to the House where the invisible men on the Committee were on 21 and 28 March? The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was left completely isolated.
      Mr. Bruce: The Minister has the advantage of having the record with her. I just wonder whether—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I just wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will return to discussion of the amendments.
      Mr. Bruce: I always follow to the letter your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have been drawn by the Minister's intervention.
      When we discussed net metering in Committee, there was a great flurry among the Labour ranks. The Trappist tendency in the Labour party started to make some comments. We thought that some of the soft words that we heard from Ministers were a sign that they would go away—
      Mrs. Liddell: I never say soft words.
      Mr. Bruce: The Minister says that she never gives us any soft words, but she did on occasions act out of
      1016
      character and say soft words to the Committee. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs says nothing but soft words. I do not wish to destroy his career, because I look on him as a friend. He was always in good mood in Committee and always good value.
      Members are trying to distract me, but I return to the point that Labour Members suddenly became impassioned when the term "net metering" appeared on the amendment paper. In fact, some amendments were tabled in their names. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is not here now. He made a short speech, and perhaps he had a deal with the Whip so that he could speak for a minute or two as long as he absented himself—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wool gathering again. Let us get back to the substance of the amendment.
      Mr. Bruce: I am sure that wool and insulation are not appropriate subjects for debate.
      On net metering, Ministers first appeared to misunderstand what we were trying to do. I remember them saying that net metering would create a cross- subsidy from electricity consumers in general to electricity consumers with some generational capacity for their own purposes. That was a complete misunderstanding of what we intended. I do not know whether it was deliberate, or whether they had not done their homework. Earlier, we heard that they tended to speak from prepared briefs, so they may not have been listening to the arguments.
      Ministers then said that, on reflection, their Green Papers and discussion documents contained exactly the same type of suggestions as we had made. It is amazing how the Labour party was converted by the last general election. It had all sorts of interesting ideas that it said that it would introduce, but it came to government and took three years to introduce the Bill. Its scope was then halved and all the so-called good ideas that it said that the nasty Tories would never think about were wiped off the map. That is a waste of a Government with enthusiasm whom Members on both sides of the House were willing to support in trying out new ideas. We were even willing to consider making Friends of the Earth happy, which is seldom possible because the organisation likes to campaign only in a negative way. For once, it might have thought that we had a good idea.
      5.45 pm
      I do not want to steal the thunder of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who has yet to speak to the new clause, but I want to comment on Government amendment No. 3. That seeks to remove from the Bill the target, which has been Government policy since the previous Administration adopted it, of meeting 5 per cent. of our electricity requirements from renewables by 2003 and 10 per cent. by 2010. Friends of the Earth has made the interesting point that a future European Union directive will impose targets that will be legally binding on the Government.
      Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman might recall, if he was back from Puerto Rico at the time, that we had a discussion about the failure of the European Union to introduce a renewables directive. An Energy Council will

      1017
      be held within the next few weeks, but we still have no directive. If anyone has managed to magic such a directive into existence for Friends of the Earth, I must say that it is a dubious and fraudulent document.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that advice, and I am sure that Friends of the Earth will listen to it carefully. Perhaps we will not have such a European directive, but the Minister who responds might want to deal with the point made by Friends of the Earth.
      When one is in opposition, one tables amendments, forcing the Government to do one thing or another, and there is a standard reply from Ministers. In this case, Ministers might say that if the Government amendment were not made, it would mean that in 2003 a policeman could say to the Secretary of State, "I have noticed that you have not generated enough electricity from renewables. You are under arrest and will be prosecuted." There is no mechanism for prosecuting the Government because they have not fulfilled a target in a Bill but, if that were possible, it would explain why the Government are so determined to make amendment No. 3.
      If an EU directive is agreed, how will it be enforced? Will the Government of the day simply implement it because they have agreed to its terms, or will it be legally enforceable?
      Mrs. Liddell: Why is the hon. Gentleman talking about hypothetical issues? The directive does not exist.
      Mr. Bruce: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you could tell the Minister, even if I could not, that these are the issues on the amendment paper. Amendment No. 3 would remove the 5 and 10 per cent. targets.
      Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman seems completely to have missed the point. Perhaps that is the effect of his having been away from the Committee for a while. One of our criticisms of the European Union is that it has not introduced a renewables directive. If renewables are to have a proper impact on international climate change, it is important that we have international agreement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect on that fact.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady because she replied as I wanted her to reply. If we have a directive that is, supposedly, enforceable on the Government, which would be the effect of the new clause, how will we ensure that other nations are keeping to its terms? Clearly, we want to reduce CO2 throughout the world and not just in our skies, which of course move across to other countries, and that is the important issue.
      Liberal Democrats are usually embarrassed to blow their own trumpet, so I shall have to do it for them. I remember the look of surprise on the face of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) when the Labour Front Benchers in Committee were not up to shouting "No" to his amendment. I was surprised by his surprise, because it had been clear throughout our proceedings that the entire Bill was a shambles. Earlier today, I raised a point of order relating to the fact that my amendment relating to the consolidation of the Bill had, unnoticed, been recorded in Hansard as having been agreed; the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, who must read
      1018
      Hansard every night, and thousands of Department of Trade and Industry staff had not noticed the mistake. Even in Committee, after the hon. Member for Lewes had got the amendment made that we are now being asked to remove, we had to nudge the Government before they realised that they had made a mistake. It is rare that I congratulate the Liberal Democrats, but I congratulate them on showing what a total shambles the Labour Government really are.
      Mr. Norman Baker: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for having been slightly late in arriving for the debate. I plead paternity leave in my defence, and add that my presence here today is not entirely understood or even supported at home.
      Mr. Gibb: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), I offer the Liberal Democrats my congratulations. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on the birth of his daughter. May I suggest a name for her: RETA—as in the revised electricity trading arrangements?
      Mr. Baker: That is an ingenious suggestion, but one that I shall probably ignore when the time—fast approaching—comes to sort out a name.
      I could not miss the opportunity to return for the debate on Government amendment No. 3. I am at a loss to know what to make of it. The Government's policy is set out in "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century: Conclusions in response to the public consultation", which states:
      5 per cent. of UK electricity requirements should be met from renewables by the end of the year 2003 and 10 per cent. by 2010.
      That relates closely to the amendment that was tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and me. We were trying to be helpful to the Government by inserting in the Bill a Labour party policy that had obviously been omitted by mistake during the process of getting the Bill up and running.
      I thought that our help had been acknowledged because, when it came to the vote in Committee, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), was so keen to support the amendment that he added his voice to mine. Such was the force of the argument and the fact that the amendment indisputably represented Labour party policy, that not a murmur of opposition was heard—the amendment was passed nem con. Both Ministers now present acceded to the amendment, and I was pleased to see that they accepted the policy of their own party.
      Therefore, I am at a loss to know why the Government are attempting to reverse my amendment—I can think of no explanation other than that it must be a mistake. It is certainly a slap in the face for the Labour Whip—a free-thinking, sensible person and a paid-up member of the human race who is much too good for the Whips Office—and for the Ministers who were present in Committee and implicitly acknowledged that my arguments had force and that my amendment should be accepted. It is extremely odd that it required a Liberal Democrat to introduce a Labour party policy whose removal requires Labour party action now.
      I wonder whether anything occurred between Committee and Report to justify such action. Nothing has changed, so the only explanation that I can offer is that

      1019
      Ministers have been leaned on by forces higher up in the Government than they are. I cannot believe that the Labour Whip in Committee made a mistake and all the Labour members of the Committee were asleep when my amendment was voted on.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that he congratulated Government Front Benchers on their actions in Committee and that they did nothing to disavow his congratulations—in fact, they appeared pleased?
      Mr. Baker: I remember that well. Ministers and Government Back Benchers present on that occasion appeared happy with the amendment when it was made, so I cannot understand why it is now to be reversed.
      If the Government intend to pursue that action, it calls into question their commitment to renewable energy. This week, £100 million was plucked out of nowhere for the coal industry, despite the fact that, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) says, that is hardly picking a winner. A Parliamentary answer I received on 24 March tells me that £9.6 million was spent by the Government on research, development, dissemination and demonstration for the renewable energy programme in 1998–99, which is the most recent year for which figures are available. That is less than the sums spent by the Conservative Government, who regularly spent between £20 million and £25 million each year. The Labour Government have drastically cut the amount of money put into renewable energy. In fact, spending for 1998–99 was the lowest in the 10-year period covered by my question, and it was the first time that spending dropped below £10 million a year. A question mark hangs over the Government's commitment to renewable energy.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to learn the contents of a message that I have just received about the European Commission's renewables directive. Our friends in Friends of the Earth tell me that it was released on 10 April and widely reported. Therefore, there must be an EU directive. Does the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recognise that Friends of the Earth was right and the Government were wrong?
      Mr. Baker: I draw two conclusions from that intervention. First, that the hon. Gentleman is closer to Friends of the Earth than he sometimes appears to be, which is a good thing, and secondly, that the Minister appears to have been briefed badly, which has not been unusual during proceedings on the Bill.
      Let me return to the question of the right hon. Lady's commitment to renewable energy. In Committee, she told me that if I read "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century: Conclusions in response to the public consultation", I would see
      the extent to which we are moving towards fulfilling our manifesto commitments, and our commitment to ensuring a proper foundation and strong future for the renewable energy industry.
      Who can complain about that? Later, she told me:
      The Government have every intention of using the new powers to meet the declared target of 10 per cent. of renewables by 2010—
      but if the Government have every intention of following their own policy and doing that, what can be the objection to writing that into the Bill? That is all that we did in
      1020
      Committee. Is it not the truth that the Government are not really committed to that target? I ask that because the right hon. Lady added the proviso,
      provided that the cost to consumers—
      no doubt, widely drawn—
      "is acceptable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,30 March 2000; c. 580.]
      I suggest that the Government are only superficially committed to renewables. They are committed to sending the right message to environmental groups, to saying the right things, and to writing nice words that can be trailed out when they meet representatives of Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace, but they are not committed to delivering on the policy—quite the reverse. If they were committed to that, they would be happy for it to be written into the Bill, but they are not. The Government want to tell the green groups that they are committed to wonderful renewable energy, but they also want to be able to tell industry not to worry because there is no real target, and to give some sort of reason for reducing their commitment even further. That is a slightly dishonest position for the Government to have adopted.
      The other relevant point about renewables is that, in Committee, the Government refused to accept the EU definition of renewable energy as excluding the incineration of waste. In response to a question from me, the Minister declared that a substantial amount of the renewable energy generation target—loosely defined—would be met from incineration capacity. That is the basis not for an argument for or against incineration, but for the argument that waste which is incinerated is not a renewable energy source. That is clear.
      It was all very well for the Minister to criticise the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), saying that combined heat and power was not renewable energy, but the Government are perfectly happy to describe incineration capacity and waste burned in that way as renewable energy, which it patently is not—not least because it encourages the production of waste in the first place, which is not environmental, and because it leaves a huge toxic deposit to be disposed of. Bottom ash and fly ash are highly toxic. How can something be declared renewable when it produces such toxic waste? The Minister is all at sixes and sevens on the issue.
      The reality is that the Government got it wrong and there was a mix-up in Committee. Such things happen, but the measure introduced by my amendment was directly in line with Labour party policy and with the Government's stated intentions in their own documents. We must now ask why they are removing it. I have had no proper explanation for that. Unless they can give one today, the only conclusion that any fair-minded Member can reach is that they are not really committed to that renewable target.
      6 pm
      Mrs. Liddell: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on the birth of his daughter. May I suggest the name Anita, after NETA—new electricity trading arrangements? Having gone through the experience that the hon. Gentleman and his wife are now going through, and knowing that they will probably have many sleepless nights, I commend to the hon. Gentleman

      1021
      the speeches of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). I am sure that they will be a superb antidote to insomnia.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I thought that the right hon. Lady was about to say that I sounded so sweet that the child would not cry when listening to one of my speeches.
      Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps it is the obsession with marble pillars. That is an in-joke for Committee members.
      It is not often that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) gets something right, and he has got it wrong again. New clause 2 concerns the publication of information. My Department already has annual and monthly energy publications that contain the information that the new clause seeks to have published, and a great deal more beside. I commend those publications to the House. The Government will continue to communicate their energy policy through clear and timely announcements.
      Is it not a measure of the bitterness among Opposition Members about the coal industry that we heard such bile about the Secretary of State's statement on Monday? It is the Government's duty, and my specific duty as the Minister with responsibility for energy, to ensure security and diversity of supply. That was something to which the previous Government paid little attention in their vendetta against the coal industry. The move that my right hon. Friend made on Monday to ensure that the management of change in the coal industry—which has gone to great lengths to improve its effectiveness and efficiency—will allow a future for an industry that the Opposition sought to destroy.
      Mr. Baker: In the interests of diversity of supply, will the right hon. Lady explain why this week the Government announced £100 million for the coal industry, but, on the most recent figures, have spent less than £10 million on renewable energy research?
      Mrs. Liddell: I am surprised that Liberal Democrats should attack the coal industry, particularly as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) represents a constituency that will directly benefit from the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that Liberal Democrats' remarks will be much reported in the communities that have suffered as a consequence of the previous Government's policy on the coal industry.
      There is no reason to accede to new clause 2. The publications of the Department for Trade and Industry contain detailed and comprehensive data and statistics which underpin the analysis of UK energy within government and beyond. The sixth annual edition of the DTI's energy report was published in December, and I commend it to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—[Interruption.] He says that he has it on his desk. It would be quite useful to open it. I have many things on my desk that would occasionally come in handy if they were opened. I also have quite a few things under my desk, which I guarantee will never be opened. Copies of that publication are in the Libraries of both Houses. That gives not just a national view of energy issues, but an international view, which is particularly important in a modern and complex world.
      1022
      Chapter 3 of that report addresses energy policy and answers all the questions that the hon. Gentleman put; chapter 8 contains full facts and figures about electricity generation; and I suspect that the rest contains any additional information that any hon. Member might reasonably want to know about energy policy. It is available on the DTI website, or from the Stationery Office and reputable bookshops for £39.50.
      Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for referring me to those learned texts, but what is the Government's nuclear policy given that the Magnox power stations are already being decommissioned?
      Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman may or may not—one can never be certain—be aware of the announcement that was made by British Nuclear Fuels plc yesterday in relation to the closing date for the Magnox stations. That will be a determining factor in the future proportion of electricity generation from nuclear energy. I cannot second guess the outcome, but the Government's policy on new nuclear build is that it is for the market to come forward with its proposals. Companies may come forward with proposals for nuclear generation and they will be looked at in the usual way. At the moment, there is no suggestion that any companies are coming forward with new nuclear build, here or internationally.
      Mr. Stunell: Does the Minister accept that, if the market comes forward with a solution that adds to the carbon dioxide burden on the atmosphere, the Government have a problem?
      Mrs. Liddell: The Government do not have a problem, because it is for the Government to decide whether any application should go ahead. In taking a decision about the future of a specific energy proposal, we have to take into account all sorts of factors, not least our commitment to the Kyoto targets. That explanation also serves in relation to gas-fired power stations. Each proposal will be looked at on its merits. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the Baglan bay proposal. That involves a high-tech specification, and that is one reason why the Government acceded to it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House argue effectively for gas-fired power stations. Regardless of from where the case comes, it will be looked at by the Government in some detail.
      New clause 2 is unnecessary. Quite apart from the energy document to which I referred, which was published in December, there is also the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.That is not a new publication; it has been published by the Government every year for the past 50 years and it includes further information on electricity generation. All of that is supplemented by a monthly publication "Energy Trends", which is available on subscription from my Department. Any hon. Member who wished to receive it could contact the Department; perhaps we could even waive the cost.
      Several points have been made about amendment No. 28, which would establish duties in relation to embedded generation and net metering. Those points have been debated in depth in Committee. Again, I must ask the House not to accept the amendment. Much embedded generation is from renewables; the Bill already acknowledges the importance of renewables. However,

      1023
      the measure separates supply and distribution. It places a duty on distributors to facilitate competition in generation and to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of distribution. It places a duty on the authority to promote consumer interests by encouraging effective competition.
      I expect the duty to be effected through regulatory action, which will give all forms of generation, including embedded generation, a fair crack of the whip. Embedded generation should not be disadvantaged. If that means that the distributors have to provide readier access to their systems—that is the point of difficulty—and their databases, I expect regulation to ensure that that happens. However, it would not be right for consumer or environmental protection to give special advantages to embedded generation.
      We have had several discussions about net metering. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) takes a considerable interest in that, and I believe that he genuinely misunderstands the position. The Bill is neutral on net metering, which is one method of supporting embedded generation. I do not believe that it is necessarily the right method because it implies a cross-subsidy. It would require suppliers to pay more for electricity supplied through embedded generation than it was worth to them. It would relieve embedded generators of the cost of maintaining the transmission and distribution networks. Prices for other customers would have to reflect that.
      Our policy is—to use a horrible phrase—to try to provide a level playing field, not to favour one system of generation over another. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton challenged us about that when we considered gas-fired generation.
      Mr. Robathan: I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill and held lengthy discussions on the subject. However, the Secretary of State's announcement of £100 million for the coal industry does not constitute providing a level playing field. If we genuinely want to encourage renewables, they need a boost. I am all for level playing fields in commerce, but sometimes a sector needs particular encouragement. For good reasons, renewables need a boost, and I am genuinely disappointed that the Government are not using the Bill to do that.
      Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed. He misunderstands the Bill—I hope not deliberately. Through the 10 per cent. obligation, the Bill will take renewables from the margins and make them mainstream. However, I shall consider that when we discuss the next amendment.
      Our targets for renewables are clear, and clauses 60 to 65 cater for them well. The Government and the regulator acknowledge that further regulatory action may be required to ensure that embedded generation can thrive. That is why the working group to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) referred, which comprises representatives of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the Government and the industry, is examining all the issues that surround embedded generation. It will report before the end of the year, and the Government will address any specific problems that it identifies.
      1024
      The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton wanted the working group to report before the other place considered the Bill. That shows that the Conservative party is not committed to achieving a way forward for embedded generation. It is important to get things right. The Bill allows the regulator to take action when necessary to assist embedded generation.
      6.15 pm
      Through the working group and other initiatives, the Department is taking steps to remove some confusion about the connection of small-scale photovoltaic generators to the electricity distribution system. That has resulted in a draft engineering recommendation—G77—which provides technical guidelines to the industry on the connection of small PV systems. On 2 May, I shall address the photovoltaics conference in Glasgow, where I shall make that point. There are difficulties with photovoltaics; they are expensive. If we followed the route that some pressure groups propose, they would become so expensive that their price would run the risk of turning the public against renewables. We must take the public with us on renewables.
      The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine mentioned offshore wind. One of the problems of onshore wind is the difficulty of convincing people to have generators in their gardens. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that offshore wind offers a new opportunity to the offshore industry. However, I am intrigued by his view that the oil industry is in the doldrums. I fail to understand how that can be true when oil costs $23 a barrel. I support greater activity from the oil and gas industries, not least because of the increase in the oil price, but also because of the Secretary of State's proposal to lift the restricted consents policy.
      Sir Robert Smith: I am disappointed that a Minister who should know more about the industry believes that a decision on Monday will affect all investment decisions in the industry by Wednesday. The industry requires long-term confidence in price and in the tax regime. The Chancellor created instability in the tax regime. Fortunately, the Government have put that behind them. The Minister could therefore have been more understanding about the difficulties in the industry and taken the constructive approach that the amendments propose rather than leading us off at a tangent.
      Mrs. Liddell: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman asked about offshore wind. If he did not want an answer, he could have saved the time of the House.
      As chairman of Pilot, the second generation of the oil and gas industry task force, I can state that we have been consulting the industry for some time about future developments in the North sea, especially in relation to gas. The industry has been vociferous in asking for the lifting of the restricted gas consents policy. We hope that that will lead to developments. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine should be aware of the Government's interest in progress in the Clair field, which could help onshore fabrication.
      The hon. Member for Lewes has had his fun at the expense of Government amendment No. 3. I do not blame him; I would have probably done the same in his position. Given that the hon. Member for Epping Forest

      1025
      (Mrs. Laing) has excellent taste in Charles Rennie Mackintosh jewellery, she will recognise the sentiment that there is hope in honest error; there is none in the icy perfection of the mere stylist. Honest error can occur.
      I concede that perhaps honest error led the hon. Member for Lewes to table amendments Nos. 235 and 236 and to omit to turn up in Committee to move them. Everybody makes mistakes. The hon. Gentleman made some valid points in Committee, and I replied to them—but amendment No. 28 was ill thought out and would not achieve his intention.
      The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to place obligations on electricity suppliers. It sets the framework for those obligations. Indeed, it takes renewables from the margins to the mainstream. However, I continue to believe that it should not prescribe the obligations. In asking the House to accept our amendment, I make one thing perfectly clear for the sake of the record and for those listening to the debate: there is no question of the Government going back on our commitment to produce 5 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2005 and 10 per cent. by 2010, but all of us who are interested in promoting generation from renewables must take the cost to consumers into account. The only issue before us is whether it is right to include those figures in the Bill.
      Mr. Gibb: The right hon. Lady is renewing her commitment to achieving 5 per cent. by 2005. Does she mean by 2003?
      Mrs. Liddell: No, I said 5 per cent. by 2005 and 10 per cent. by 2010.
      We have made it plain that we intend to consult further on how those powers will be exercised. They represent a big move forward and it is important that we get it right. That requires consultation.
      Mr. Baker: I am trying to pin down the Government's position. If they remain committed to those targets, although one already seems to have slipped from 2003—[Interruption.] The Government's paper refers to 2003, but the target is now 2005. If they remain committed to those targets, why are they not prepared to put them in the Bill?
      Mrs. Liddell: I hate to repeat myself, but it is not appropriate to include the targets because we need to consult. We have to ensure that we take the industry and consumers with us, and the provision that the hon. Gentleman sought to insert in Committee would have pre-empted that consultation. I do not know Liberal Democrat policy on listening to people, but Labour Members believe in listening. We need to consult both on the profile of the obligation that we will impose so as to reach our buy-out mechanism target, and on the cost to consumers of achieving that obligation. The buy-out mechanism will considerably assist the renewables industry, and I contend that not allowing consultation on it would be contrary to the hon. Gentleman's aims.
      Mr. Baker: May I try a different tack? Can the Minister give the House a categoric assurance that 10 per cent. of our energy will be generated from renewable sources by 2010?
      Mrs. Liddell: As far as any human being can, yes. The Government are committed to ensuring that 10 per cent.
      1026
      of electricity should be generated from renewables by 2010 and, to ensure that that is not a short-term blip, we intend that to continue to 2025. I hope that by that time, renewables that are far from the market will be closer to it. The proportion of renewables going into electricity generation could increase, but we can ensure that it does by getting the mechanisms right. However, that is not straightforward. We can be sure of achieving it only if we listen closely to the responses from the wide body of expertise out there in the electricity industry, including the renewables industry, and the views of consumers, who will pay for that electricity through their bills. The provision that the Government amendment will remove is wrong in principle. It is beside the point that the drafting also happens to be flawed; it has no place in the Bill.
      Now I shall respond to the points on research and development expenditure made by the hon. Member for Lewes. The estimated outturn in 1999–2000 was £10.5 million. We have budgeted for £14 million in 2000–01 and for £18 million next year. That is a considerable increase on the figures that he suggested.
      Conservative Members referred to our ability to meet our emissions targets. The Government are well on course to meet the Rio target to keep CO2 emissions within their 1990 levels, and the Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. by 2012. Power station emissions decreased by more than a quarter between 1990 and 1999. On a temperature-corrected basis, emissions fell by 7 per cent. between 1990 and 1999. Overall emissions from electricity generation have decreased by 28.5 per cent. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton shadows the energy brief and it is important for him to take into account the fact that energy is not the only cause of emissions problems. Transport emissions must be kept under control, for example, and that is taken fully into account in the climate change—
      Mr. Gibb: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the CO2 advantages of the nuclear component of our electricity industry are equivalent to taking half all cars and vehicles off the roads. If she intended to meet the CO2 emission target by dealing with cars and lorries, we would be talking about considerable remedies on the transport side.
      Mrs. Liddell: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not deliberately misunderstand, but I cannot always be sure. Emissions cover energy and transport. He should read the climate change document published a month ago by my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This country's draft climate change strategy takes into account not only transport and energy, but energy efficiency, which is another key area covered in the Bill.
      In an exchange with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), the hon. Gentleman asked about the status of the duty to promote competition. It is simply not the case that the authority's duty has been demoted. Indeed, the Bill makes it clear that the consumer benefits are to be achieved through effective competition, wherever appropriate. Competition is difficult to achieve in some examples, but we are trying to generate much more in respect of the fuel-poor and those who have pre-payment meters.
      The hon. Member for Blaby asked about the photovoltaics issues raised by Dr. Jeremy Leggett, Greenpeace and Forum for the Future. I have answered his

      1027
      points broadly, but he may be interested in my Department' s more general work on photovoltaics. There are three major new initiatives, and the Department of Trade and Industry is contributing some £5 million towards a total estimated investment of £15 million. There is a call for PV systems proposals and components, a domestic PV systems field trial for a minimum of 100 homes, and a demo scheme for large-scale building-integrated photovoltaics. The 50,000 roof programme, which is always used in relation to photovoltaics, would cost the taxpayer £250 million and generate less than half of one tenth of 1 per cent. of the UK's current electricity demand.
      The House should resist new clause 2 and support Government amendment No. 3, as we must ensure that we have a coherent energy policy that takes into account the needs of not only existing electricity generation but forthcoming electricity generation. Some mischief has been made concerning the Government's commitment to renewables, but that does the renewables industry no service at all, and also ignores its views. We want to put in place a framework that will move it from the margins to the mainstream.
      Mr. Gibb: That was a disappointing debate. We tabled new clause 2 to elicit from the Minister's own mouth a description of the Government's overall energy strategy. It would have taken her no more than a few minutes to precis their energy policy—if, indeed, there is a long-term strategic objective—but it is clear that there is no long-term energy strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Secretary of State, said on Monday, a piecemeal policy responds to day-to-day crises and events.
      6.30 pm
      The Minister was wrong to say that there is a clear energy policy for the nuclear industry. Her predictable response to my question was to refer it back to the industry. Nuclear power represents 30 per cent. of energy output. It is no good saying that reducing CO2 is not just about energy output, but about transportation. If the 30 per cent. nuclear component produced vehicle-type emissions, half the cars in this country would have to be taken off the road. If she is saying that when nuclear power stations are decommissioned she can make up for their lack of CO2 emissions through transport policies, she will have to have a hugely draconian policy on transportation.
      Mrs. Liddell: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say. I pointed out that a wide range of issues relate to emissions and affect our CO2 targets. I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman, who is a committed, right-wing, free marketeer, is now backing off from the use of market mechanisms to determine future generation. Perhaps he should make it clear whether that is Conservative policy.
      Mr. Gibb: I should be delighted to make that clear. The market mechanism is fine, except that the previous Conservative Government and this Government have signed up to international agreements to reduce CO2 emissions. They are an interference in the market mechanism. To enable those targets to be met, the
      1028
      Government must inevitably interfere in the market to encourage or nudge it to deliver what they have signed up to. If there is no nudging, there is no certainty that the targets will be met. They could be met, but there is no certainty that the market will deliver them, because this is an artificial constraint on the market mechanism.
      The Government are not fulfilling their duty to explain what will happen in 2012 and beyond as Magnox stations are decommissioned. This is an important point, because there is a genuine concern about what will happen. The Minister has not done herself any favours by failing to set out in straightforward terms what the Government intend to replace nuclear power with. If they are saying that energy efficiency will fill the gap and will make up for 30 per cent. of energy production, and that nuclear power stations will be replaced by gas-fired power stations, there will be a colossal increase in CO2 emissions. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that that can be dealt with by reducing transportation a little and by energy efficiency measures, because they will not be adequate to deal with the increase in CO2 caused by the decommissioning of nuclear power stations.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) expressed his disappointment at the lack of Government commitment to combined heat and power, which is important because its operation is equivalent to reducing CO2 emissions by 86 per cent. It not only produces electricity from gas, which is 50 per cent. more efficient than coal or oil as regards CO2 emissions, but it avoids the need to use other electricity sources to heat greenhouses, factories or homes.
      The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I am intrigued to know whether, if a future Government decided to build more nuclear power stations, Bognor and Littlehampton would be a suitable spot to construct one. If not, why not?
      Mr. Gibb: The Minister is going into planning issues. Places around the country already have nuclear power stations, and sites are available there, especially where plants are being decommissioned. That is an issue for the Government. They must address these concerns, and it is no good throwing them back at the Opposition.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I have had a long interest in nuclear power stations, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I have seen all the plans of the sites where people want to put additional nuclear power stations, and his constituency does not feature among them.
      Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said that it would be wrong not to require electricity companies to purchase surplus electricity from households or small businesses that has been generated by photovoltaic energy, combined heat and power, or wind. The headquarters of The Body Shop in Littlehampton has a wind-turbine generator, which generates much of the power for the company's operations. What is wrong with that? The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said in Committee that forcing the electricity industry to

      1029
      buy back surplus electricity would be like requiring Tesco to purchase the lettuces that he grows on his allotment. There is a difference between his lettuces and electricity, because his lettuces wilt over time but electricity is an homogenous product which lasts. It is a fungible asset, which can be sent back down the wires with no deterioration in quality.
      Mr. Robathan: The point about the wind-turbine generator at The Body Shop is that people should be encouraged to install small-scale renewable plants—wind-generated or whatever—through net metering, because it will remove the costs. The Government seem to have ignored that. They say that we do not understand, but they seem to have missed the point.
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I believe that small generation plants will be the future of renewable energy in this country. Anything that can be done to encourage them, such as net metering, is to be welcomed.
      Mr. Bruce: I suspect that the Minister will not speak again. My hon. Friend referred to different forms of fuel. Despite the Minister's challenges about the Government's decision to subsidise coal, she has not said how that affects the CO2 load and what their long-term policy on coal is.
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I suspect that I can answer. The Government do not have an overall, long-term, strategic energy policy. They merely respond to day-to-day crises and to internal Labour party politics. That was the whole basis of the energy White Paper published in October 1998.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby also made the important point, which had not occurred to me, that the new clause would enable the public to assess the workability of the climate change levy, and to see how much damage it is doing to British industry and to the aims and objects of the levy. He also suggested that the Government were resisting the Liberal Democrat amendment because they were concerned that they could face court action if they failed to deliver on their manifesto promise. Perhaps we should propose that all Labour manifesto promises be put in amendments to Bills. I should like to suggest an amendment to the Finance Bill about the Government not raising taxes, as the Labour party promised time after time before the election.
      I was concerned about the right hon. Lady's statement that the Government's target was that 5 per cent. of Britain's electricity requirements would be met from renewables by 2005, not 2003. My memory of the renewable energy consultation document is that the target was 2003, not 2005. [Interruption.] I am grateful for sedentary confirmation of that by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).
      Mrs. Liddell: We are on course to meet the target by 2003.
      Mr. Gibb: How does that differ from the Government's target of 2005?
      Mrs. Liddell: If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to say 2003.
      Mr. Gibb: It does help me, because it is consistent with the target that the Government have published in their consultation documents. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that confirmation.
      The hon. Member for Lewes made the obvious point, but made it very well, that the phrase in the Liberal Democrat amendment was lifted from the renewable energy consultation document. It goes to show how meaningless are the Government's promises if they are not prepared to put them into the legislation when it is proposed and passed by the Standing Committee.
      This has been a disappointing debate. It was an opportunity for the Government to set out in five or 10 minutes the broad, general thrust of their energy policy. It is a lost opportunity, and it goes to show how important the new clause is, because it would have required the Government to publish details of their energy policy. I am disappointed that the Government will not accept the new clause. However, given that we have had a debate, albeit disappointing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 9

      OBJECTIVES AND DUTIES UNDER 1986 ACT
      Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 15, leave out "wherever appropriate".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 7, line 6, leave out "Subject to subsection (2)," and insert "In performing that duty".
      No. 23, in clause 13, page 9, line 25, leave out "wherever appropriate".
      No. 30, in page 10, line 16, leave out "Subject to subsection (2)," and insert "In performing that duty".
      Mr. Gibb: Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 amend clause 9 in the case of gas, and clause 13 in the case of electricity. Those clauses are fundamental to the Bill, in that they set out the objectives for the Secretary of State and the regulator.
      Under the previous legislation, the primary objectives for the Secretary of State and the regulator consisted of three equal duties:
      to ensure that all reasonable demands for electricity are satisfied …
      to ensure that licence holders are able to finance…activities …
      to promote competition in the generation and supply of electricity.
      Under the Bill, the sole primary objective is to promote or protect consumer interests. The promotion of competition comes into play only when it is directly appropriate to the protection of the interests of the consumer.
      In other words, the promotion of competition has been downgraded to a second priority, despite what the Minister said in an intervention on our debate on new clause 2 and the amendments grouped with it. The phrase "wherever appropriate" inserted before the word "competition" downgrades the promotion of competition, making such promotion possible only when it is appropriate in order to protect the consumer. That is despite the fact that privatisation and competition have produced cuts of 30 per cent. in real terms in electricity prices, and 30 per cent. cuts in gas prices.

      1031
      Privatisation and competition have delivered the best protection for the consumer in terms of better service, lower prices and increased choice. Demoting competition to a second priority reveals the Government's complete lack of understanding of the way in which business and the industry operate. Clause 9 states:
      The principal objective of the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority…is to protect the interests of consumers…wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition.
      The insertion of the words "wherever appropriate" downgrades the objective.
      Professor Littlechild, who developed the brilliant methodology of rpi minus x as a basis for regulating prices in the electricity industry after privatisation, wrote in a pamphlet published recently by the Institute of Economic Affairs:
      The proposed wording of the change here may be positively unhelpful as it puts an additional obstacle in the way of regulators promoting competition. The duty to promote competition will no longer be unqualified. This will have to be demonstrated to be the most appropriate way to protect customers.
      In other words, the regulator must face an additional hurdle before he can promote competition. He will have to show that promoting competition will help the consumer.
      Such things are always difficult to demonstrate. I have no doubt that promoting competition will help the consumer, but that is sometimes difficult to demonstrate in advance. No doubt all the utility companies will go to considerable lengths to show that greater competition with them will hinder the interests of the consumer, and the regulator will have to try to surmount their arguments. The fear is that that will take place in a court of law, no thanks to the Bill. Amendment No. 22 simply removes the words "wherever appropriate", thus ensuring that the objective of the Secretary of State and the regulator is
      to protect the interests of consumers by promoting effective competition.
      We are convinced that the interests of the consumer are best served by the promotion of competition.
      The "objective" clauses go to the heart of what the Bill purports to do. It was clear in Committee that there is considerable confusion about what those clauses do, and we hope to establish what they do through our amendments. We are told by the Government that the Bill represents an important change to the regulator's framework for the utilities sector. According to the Minister, the Bill delivers on the promise that the Government made during the general election campaign to achieve open and predictable regulation that is fair to customers and shareholders. She added that it will allow people to benefit from utilities regulation reform in a changing marketplace that will provide many opportunities for better service.
      The same triumphalist language was used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. He said:
      As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to modernisation and reform in a whole range of important areas of public life. The Utilities Bill is part of that agenda of modernisation and reform. It will deliver efficiency and fairness, bringing together social justice and fairness, two sides of the same coin…It puts consumers first and provides a basis for effective competition and a stable framework for regulation.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 782.]
      1032
      6.45 pm
      That is high-blown language from both the Minister and the Secretary of State, and it contrasts sharply with the words of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who says that the clauses are not revolutionary:
      we do not expect that there will be a dramatic upheaval—a revolution indeed—in utility regulations…The regulatory and economic environment in which utility companies operate will not be turned upside down.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,29 February 2000; c. 234.]
      On the one hand, the Government are claiming that the "objectives" clauses and the Bill will change the whole basis of utility regulation, and will make the protection of the consumer the primary duty. On the other hand, the Minister has said that even after the Bill the promotion of competition will be as paramount as before, and that the Bill does nothing very radical.
      The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the Bill is radical or it is not; either it changes the framework or it does not. If it does not change the framework, or the objectives of the regulator, what is the point of the clauses?
      What matters is the actual wording. As drafted, clauses 9 and 13 introduce a whole new set of priorities for the Secretary of State and the regulator. The objectives that they identify will impose extra costs on the utilities, which will then be passed on to consumers. They will increase regulatory risks, and will therefore add to the capital costs of the utilities. Again, those extra costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers.
      If the House accepts clauses 9 and 13 unamended, the promotion of competition will occur only when it can be shown to protect consumers. If the regulator and the Secretary of State have the same philosophical disposition as my hon. Friends and me, and believe that competition will nearly always benefit the consumer and that greater competition will never damage the interests of consumers, I do not doubt that the new regulatory regime will function well, and will continue to deliver greater competition and lower prices. On the other hand, we may have a regulator who shares the Prime Minister's philosophy—if, indeed, the Prime Minister has a philosophy other than that of political manoeuvring and analysis. Back in 1988, during the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill, the Prime Minister said:
      outside the Conservative party…it is barely in issue that prices will rise because of privatisation.—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 681.]
      I do not know whether the regulator will share those views, or the Prime Minister's other view of privatisation. He has said that the idea that we would have an influx of power stations all competing on the grid was nonsense.
      Of course, we did have an influx of new power stations, and they are all competing on the grid. We did see, and continue to see, falling electricity and, indeed, gas prices. If the Labour party still believes that privatisation and competition will not promote lower prices and more choice, I am concerned.
      Given the Government's proclivity to promote their cronies, or people with the same political outlook, to positions of power, I would be concerned if a future regulator holding views similar to those of the Prime Minister sought to fulfil the obligations in clauses 9 and 13, because he or she would never hold the view that the promotion of competition would protect the interests

      1033
      of consumers. The amendments would removed the words "wherever appropriate", thus removing the element of subjectivity. The amended clause would require the regulator to protect consumers by promoting competition, which is the position in the current regulatory regime. The Minister says that that is all the clause does anyway, so he should have no problem with the amendment.
      Mr. Hilary Benn: I want to make a brief contribution to argue that the words "wherever appropriate" are necessary. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) presented a theoretical concern about the impact of the clause. I want to address a practical issue, which is the disparity in charges faced by customers in the supply of gas.
      In Britain today, people who are poor pay 20 per cent. more for their supply of gas. That is the difference between the charge paid by people who pay by direct debit and that paid by those who pay by pre-payment meter.
      The figures are startling. For 650 therms of gas, a customer pays £281 by direct debit, £320 by standard quarterly credit and £336 by pre-payment meter—for the same amount of gas.
      Mr. Gibb: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the Committee stage, his Government proposed amendments that gave the gas and electricity industries the right to access property to install a pre-payment meter against the wishes of the customer? At the moment, they cannot enter to install such a meter because it is the choice of the customer: he or she decides whether to have the meter. That person can be cut off, but having such a meter is the choice of the customer. As a result of the Bill as amended, it will no longer be the choice of the customer. I agree with him. Pre-payment meters are extortionate and they are wrong. Now his Government have given the right of entry to install those things against the wishes of consumers.
      Mr. Benn: I am aware that that is the case. My point is about the charge that the gas companies levy.
      I realise that not all pre-payment meter users are on low incomes, but the Government themselves estimate that 24 per cent. of households receiving income support pay for their gas by pre-payment meter. A recent MORI poll clearly shows that the use of pre-payment meters increases the lower down the socio-economic groups we go. Over half the users of pre-payment meters are people in households who are not working and a quarter are one-parent families.
      I wanted to make the point in relation to the gas companies; that is the object of my contribution. It is extraordinary that the highest charges are levied on those with the lowest incomes.
      The issue has been the subject of debate for quite some time. The Public Accounts Committee has commented on it. The recent report of the Gas Consumers Council says:
      It is time pre-payment meter consumers benefited from the liberalised gas market.
      I welcome the clause and other clauses. I welcome the reference to "wherever appropriate" because it can be used to hasten the day when the practice of charging the poor more can be brought to an end and consigned to history, where it belongs.
      Mr. Stunell: I want to speak in support of amendments Nos. 29 and 30, and against the Conservative amendment, which the Liberal Democrats think is mistaken. It is clear that there are occasions on which the guiding force cannot be the straight issue of competition—the form that would be left if the words were deleted. The two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) relating to gas and electricity are mistaken. I associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) in that regard.
      Through our amendments, we are trying to reintroduce into the debate some of the issues that were discussed in Committee, but not dealt with sufficiently. The amendments would ensure that a broader duty was placed on the regulator—a duty not confined solely to issues of competition.
      We have sought to delete the words "Subject to subsection (2)" in subsection (5). Subsection (2) places on the regulator the requirement to put competition first and foremost—before all other considerations, if subsection (2) is removed, issues relating to environmental and social and welfare activities can be given the significance that they deserve.
      I return to the point that I made earlier. We are talking not simply of regulating competition but of regulating to achieve the overall policy objectives of this Government and, I believe, any Government: the protection of consumers on low incomes—a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central—and the protection of the environment, an issue over which the Minister was disturbingly glib in winding up the previous debate. It is absolutely clear that, as the decades go forward, the implementation of sound environmental policies will be highly dependent on the regulator having the power, the ability and, in some cases, the duty to act not solely on price and competition matters.
      These two simple amendments are designed to swing the balance of the Bill back towards the environmental agenda. They have wide support among nongovernmental organisations and groups outside the House that have been supplying information and support to Members and to Ministers. I will leave it at that, and simply urge the Government to have yet another look at the key issue of balancing their declared environmental policy objectives with the powers and duties that they are prepared to give those who have to implement their policies under the Bill.
      Dr. Howells: There are some activities connected with the supply of gas and electricity in which competition simply cannot protect the interests of consumers. It is that practicality that Opposition Members have forgotten in tabling amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
      There are natural monopolies—gas pipeline and electricity distribution networks, for example—in which it will never be cost-effective to develop competition. To facilitate competition in such activities would require the construction of duplicate networks, at colossal expense and with devastating consequences for the environment. Such action would rarely be in the interests of consumers.
      Where natural monopolies exist, it is right that the interests of consumers should be protected by some means other than competition. That is why the regulator is given discretion to determine whether the promotion of competition is the most appropriate means of protecting

      1035
      the interests of consumers—although competition should be the regulator's first choice in the absence of a good reason to the contrary.
      Where there are natural monopolies in which competition is powerless to protect consumers, what is a regulator to do? The amendments are silent on that point, so presumably the intention is that the regulator should do nothing at all. Certainly, the obligation to protect the interests of consumers would no longer apply. The amendments risk leaving the consumer exposed to exploitation by companies operating in monopoly markets, which is precisely what regulation is intended to prevent. I ask the House to reject amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
      I do not fault the motives of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) in tabling amendments Nos. 29 and 30, but they shoot at the wrong target. The regulator's principal objective is cast in terms of protecting the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition. That objective reflects the basic rationale for the existence of gas and electricity regulation.
      Although we recognise the necessity of ensuring that the environmental dimension of utility regulation is properly managed, we do not believe that environmental considerations should be part of the duty to further the principal objective. In the final analysis, the Bill is about economic rather than environmental regulation. The current status of duties ensures that, when making a choice between alternatives of equal benefit to the consumer, the regulator should lean towards the one that is most favourable from an environmental perspective. We think that that is the right outcome. I ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
      Mr. Gibb: That was a rapid and disappointing reply. I thought that the debate required something a little more substantial than that.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) raised his concern about the use of pre-payment meters, which will result in significantly higher gas bills for the poorest consumers. He makes a valid point. The same point applies to customers of electricity suppliers. It has long been my view—and, indeed, the view of many Conservative Members—that pre-payment meters hark back to a bygone era when gas and electricity suppliers were monopoly industries owned by the state. Monopoly state companies were able to treat their customers in that way. Rather than trying to sort out a person's slight payment problem, as many private sector companies now try to do, monopoly companies can simply install pre-payment meters and use their monopoly power to charge customers 10 to 25 per cent. more than they charge other customers—
      7 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We come now to the Private Bill set down for this hour.
      As there is no one in the Chamber to move it, we will continue with the Utilities Bill.
      Mr. Gibb: The hon. Member for Leeds, Central made some valid points on pre-payment meters.
      I strongly believe that pre-payment meters would not be used if we had increased competition in the utilities industries. As competition has increased, companies such as PowerGen have done deals with organisations such as Age Concern to provide a package of services to various groups which have not previously been the suppliers' prime targets. The more competition that we have, the more fierce companies will be in trying to target all groups in society as valuable customers. Without competition, companies may believe that it is too expensive to provide services to those groups.
      The Minister said that if the phrase "wherever appropriate" were removed from clause 9, on natural monopolies, the regulator would be forced to require increased competition in sectors in which, because of a natural monopoly, competition cannot possibly operate. The gas and electricity distribution networks, for example, are natural monopolies, as they will be the foreseeable future.
      The Minister's warnings are not justified by the operation of the previous regulatory regime, under which companies were not required to create new gas or electricity distribution networks. Such requirements have not been imposed under the current regulatory regime, and they would not be imposed under the proposed regime if the words "wherever appropriate" were removed from clause 9.
      The issue reveals that the Government still do not understand the efficacy of increased competition in delivering benefits for consumers. It is disappointing that they have not been able to accept this group of amendments, but, in view of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS IN RELATION TO GAS
      Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 2, after "Parliament", insert—
      'together with an impact assessment of the extent to which any additional costs incurred by the Authority, Council or licence holders consequent on implementing the guidance will be passed on to consumers.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in clause 14, page 11, line 11, after "Parliament", insert—
      'together with an impact assessment of the extent to which any additional costs incurred by the Authority, Council or licence holders consequent on implementing the guidance will be passed on to consumers.'.
      Mr. Gibb: Clause 10, on gas, and clause 14, on electricity, give the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance to the regulator, to impose on utilities a range of new social and environmental objectives. As hon. Members will be aware, the regulatory framework, which was introduced by the previous Government, already contains a requirement that the regulator should have

      1037
      regard to the interests of vulnerable consumers such as the chronically sick and disabled, people in rural communities and the elderly.
      It is quite right that there should be such a requirement, as a monopolistic supplier may well decide not to supply those groups, who sometimes may be less profitable than other groups. However, in a fiercely competitive environment, those groups become important customers whom all the companies in that environment want to target and win over. The regulator essentially mimics the force of competition in monopoly or near-monopoly environments, in which protecting those groups becomes an important objective.
      Clauses 10 and 14 go beyond that position and are more about using the regulatory framework and machinery to deliver the Government's social objectives—which, more properly, should be delivered in other Government programmes and by Departments such as the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
      The guidance issued by the Secretary of State could add significantly to utilities companies' costs. Subsequently—according to the Government's own regulatory impact assessment—those costs will be passed on to consumers. That is why the Opposition are concerned both about the specific provisions and about the Bill. We are concerned that legislation trumpeted by the Government as being beneficial for consumers will add to the electricity and gas prices that consumers pay.
      The guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State is not a minor matter or small beer. In Committee, it was made all too clear thanks to the diligent probing of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that Ofgem is incurring escalating property costs. It is moving its offices from Birmingham to London, where it will occupy nice offices in Millbank designed to house 450 staff, when having combined Ofgas and Offer staffs, it employs only 400 staff. That number could increase to 430 once the offices are fully merged, but only 350 staff will move into the plush and expensively refurbished new offices in Millbank, leaving room for another 100 staff. Another 80 staff members will occupy offices in Leicester and Glasgow.
      In a Select Committee investigation, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) discovered that Ofgem's forecast expenditure is set to rise from £29.8 million annually three years ago, to £64.5 million in 2000–01. In Committee, the Minister said that the colossal increase was a consequence of meeting the redundancy costs associated with the move from Birmingham to London and of making the one-off expenditure of £13.2 million on the new electricity trading arrangements project. However, even taking those factors into account, the increase in regulatory costs is significant. All those costs will be recouped from utilities companies. Ultimately, according to the Government's regulatory impact assessment, the costs will be passed on to consumers.
      The direct regulatory costs are only part of the story. Utilities companies will also incur significant costs in responding to the plethora of new information requests that will arise from the Bill's provisions. Those costs, too, will be passed on to consumers.
      1038
      Utilities will incur costs in implementing the Secretary of State's guidance to the regulator, and those costs will be passed on to consumers. Those costs—which will be the largest extra costs faced by consumers—will be a direct result of the guidance. Although the word "guidance" is used, the guidance will in fact be orders, and the regulator will have to obey them—both because the Bill states that the authority should have regard to them, and because the regulator will probably wish eventually to be reappointed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the guidances issued by the Secretary of State will almost certainly be directives.
      Draft guidances have already been published by the Secretary of State. One draft guidance states that the authority should have regard to the Government's objective of improving the "health of everyone". Such guidance is incredibly broad and potentially extremely burdensome. It also generally reflects the Government's social and political agenda. The Government clearly envisage that policy objectives will be delivered by the regulatory framework and mechanism, and implemented by private sector electricity and gas companies. Nevertheless, such an objective—on improving the "health of everyone"—is far too wide for the regulator to deliver.
      Other guidances provide Ofgem with the objectives of tackling poverty and social exclusion and reducing the proportion of unfit housing stock. It surprises me that the Secretary of State has not issued guidances on ending world hunger and creating world peace. The guidances are drafted incredibly widely, leaving the regulator with enormous discretion as to how to interpret them, in new licence conditions for the utilities or new performance standards.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber earlier, although I have been following the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the provisions are drafted so broadly will be a disincentive to companies to invest in the industry for fear that there will be Government regulation on such a scale that they will be unable to make future projections of income?
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The wide drafting of the guidance will increase regulatory risk, and that will have two severe consequences for the consumer. First, it will raise the cost of capital, as investors will require compensation for the extra risk. That will mean higher interest charges and expenses. The companies involved are capital intensive and have large borrowings, so the cost will be passed on to the consumer in higher prices or prices that would otherwise have been lower.
      Secondly, as my hon. Friend said, the guidances will deter some companies from entering the industry and will therefore reduce competition. As we all know, competition drives down prices and forces companies to be more efficient. There will be a tad less pressure from increased competition.
      It may surprise some hon. Members to hear that, despite the fact that the Utilities Bill is still going through Parliament, Ofgem has widely consulted consumer groups, industry and Government on how it intends to implement the Government's draft guidance, although that

      1039
      guidance has still to be approved by an affirmative resolution of the House. Not only has the Bill not yet received Royal Assent—although Ofgem is busy consulting on it—but the draft guidance issued by the Secretary of State has not yet been considered by the House. That cannot happen until the Bill has received Royal Assent. The guidance will then be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If it gets through both Houses of Parliament, it will then become law. Despite all that, Ofgem is already consulting.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed during our discussion of the Bill that the civil servants seem to be running the Ministers. Has he noticed that organisations such as the authority and the council have been putting their own spin on the provisions, rather than waiting for Parliament? Did he see the letter from the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council of 31 March, saying that it plans to table amendments to the Bill when it reaches another place as it does not like what the Government have done so far? Who is running this? It is certainly not the Government.
      Mr. Gibb: Yes, I read that comment. I am concerned that unelected bodies such as Ofgem take it upon themselves to decide policy and to consult on it. It is a general concern about the political situation in Britain that people are beginning to hold politicians in less esteem, and that decisions are being made by those who are not elected. That gives rise to concern in the longer run about the future of our democratic institutions.
      Despite everything, Ofgem has undertaken wide consultation with the Government, industry and consumer groups and has produced a social action plan. I note that it is not a draft social action plan, although it is based on various drafts, but a final version. It sets out in more detail how it intends to implement the guidances issued by the Secretary of State. In addition, an Ofgem press release said in early March:
      Ofgem has also appointed a 10 member review panel bringing together consumer groups, Government and representatives of the energy and banking industries. Regular reports on progress against the plan will also be published.
      Callum McCarthy, the chairman of the new authority, stated:
      There are many customers who either because of low income or poor housing find it difficult to afford heat and light for their homes. This is a big and complex problem which requires many parts of Government and the industry to contribute to solutions. Through the social action plan Ofgem will concentrate on taking effective action to tackle this problem to make a difference for low income and disadvantaged customers.
      7.15 pm
      It is abundantly clear that Ofgem will impose on the gas and electricity industries considerable financial costs in respect of implementing the Government's social agenda. Few can object to the elected Government of the day implementing a social agenda. It is almost par for the course that a Labour Government will want to spend public money on such imperatives and to raise the funds for the projects through taxation. However, we find it objectionable that the Government are implementing such programmes by imposing significant extra costs on the
      1040
      electricity and gas companies. As the Government have acknowledged, those costs will be passed on to consumers in their gas and electricity bills. Instead of paying for their programmes through the tax system, which has been designed to raise money according to people's ability to pay, the Government are funding them through electricity and gas bills that depend on how much electricity and gas people use—so large families and pensioners will pay more because they use more fuel energy than other groups in society.
      Mr. Robert Syms: Would it not be more honest if companies were allowed to state on the bills that they send to consumers what effect the Government's measures were having?
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Of course the customers would all be up in arms, so I do not expect that the Government will do that, although it would increase honesty in politics, which is important, and enable people to know how much extra they were having to spend as a result of the Government's programmes.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Does he agree that the on-costs to which he is referring will suffer a time delay? I rather suspect that the Government are being cynical. While hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome anything that will help poorer families, the Government are ensuring that increases in gas and electricity prices probably will not take effect for one or two years hence—after the next general election. Is that not a cynical move?
      Mr. Gibb: The Bill will receive Royal Assent later this year and the measures will be implemented in the next few years, so my hon. Friend is right. What he says backs up the point that, if the Government were honest, they would raise the funds through taxation and spend it through Government spending programmes. Where is the logic or the equity in what they propose? It is no honest way to run a Government programme or to develop a social agenda. How does it help the consumer to be saddled with potentially huge extra costs?
      The Green Paper that heralded the Bill recognised the risk inherent in such reforms to the regulatory regime when it said:
      If the Government concludes that its social and environmental policy objectives require action which would have significant financial implications for consumers or for the regulated companies, such action should be taken forward by means of new specific provisions in primary or secondary legislation rather than through guidance to the regulators.
      The indication so far is that the Government's promise in that Green Paper is not being adhered to by Ofgem or, indeed, by the Secretary of State. The guidances clearly impose burdensome costs on industry. Those costs will be passed on to the consumer so, in the words of the Green Paper, there will be
      significant financial implications for consumers.
      Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would add to clauses 10 and 14 a requirement that the Secretary of State prepares an impact assessment of the extent to which any additional costs incurred by the authority, the consumer council or licence holders as a result of implementing the guidance will be passed on to consumers. It is important

      1041
      that the Government fully understand the financial implications of their proposed measures and, in particular, how those costs will be met and by whom. If the Minister really is on the side of the consumer, he should have no problem with accepting the amendments.
      Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis (Mr. Gibb) will not be surprised to learn that I have problems with the amendments. [Interruption.] I forgot that his constituency includes Littlehampton, which will probably be the site of the next nuclear reactor.
      As the hon. Gentleman told us, amendments Nos. 24 and 25 seek to oblige the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with an assessment of how actions taken by the authority, the council and licence-holders in pursuit of policies and objectives in the guidance are likely to impact on consumers in terms of costs. That assessment is to be laid before Parliament together with the draft guidance. However, amendments of this type, which attempt to define or limit the potential costs resulting from the guidance, are misguided and unnecessary.
      Such amendments are unnecessary because the Government will not use the guidance as a means of giving effect to measures that would have significant financial implications for consumers or companies. We have made that clear throughout the utilities review. The amendments are misguided because the Opposition fail to grasp the fact that this clause provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance, not direction, to the authority. As can be seen from the draft guidance to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority published in February, the guidance will not be highly detailed or prescriptive. It will simply set out the social and environmental policies and objectives to which the authority should make an appropriate contribution.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Howells: No, I wish to make some progress. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has hardly been in the Chamber this evening.
      Such guidance will give the authority a necessary degree of latitude to act as it deems appropriate in the context of its framework of statutory duties and the regulatory circumstances at the time.
      As it is the authority that must decide how to act on the policies and objectives in the guidance, it will not be possible for the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with any kind of realistic assessment as to the costs that might result. The only way that the Secretary of State could provide such an assessment would be to issue directions to the authority on the contribution that it should make towards the Government's social and environmental objectives. The Government have rejected that option, as it would contravene the principle of arm's length economic regulation. For all those reasons, we shall resist amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am surprised that the Minister treated the amendments so peremptorily. The Government will impose on consumers a whole raft of new stealth taxes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is interesting that Labour Members groan, because they freely admitted in Committee, where perhaps people do not listen so carefully, how much will be added to consumers' bills.
      1042
      Although they gave some assurances in Committee about how much money would be added, they admitted that there would be no restraints on the amount that could be added to people's bills on the wide basis of social and environmental interference in the electricity and gas markets. Ministers will be able to fiddle about with all sorts of regulations. The Bill will also give enormous power and influence to Ofgem and to the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council.
      Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for being kind enough to give way to me, unlike the Minister who churlishly chose not to do so.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will achieve the worst of both worlds? On the one hand, they say that they will not give clear direction, and on the other, they say that they will give guidance that will be so broad that the regulator will not know how to act. Would it not be better either to remain at arm's length and give no guidance or to give clear direction? At the moment, nobody knows what will happen and investors will be deterred from investing in the industry, which will put prices up.
      Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend makes some valuable points. The problem is that the Government are tinkering at the margins. Government thinking is, "Well, the Conservative Government put £1 on people's bills doing good environmental things, and we will put six times as much—or perhaps 12 or 14 times as much—on bills to start with." The amendments are necessary because no limit has been put on the amount. We are relying on the Government's reasonableness. We saw that so-called reasonableness when they decided to put additional taxes on motorists. Those taxes became so unreasonable that even this Government had to U-turn, because the escalator increased fuel duty way beyond the point of achieving anything good. The Conservative Government achieved what they set out to achieve by putting the escalator on fuel, which was to ensure that cars were more efficient than before.
      The amendments would require the Government to include an assessment of the costs involved in the advice that they give. I hope also that the Government will include an assessment of the benefits that are intended to flow from that expenditure. People constantly claim that this or that regulation is good news without assessing the cost or the advantages. However, whenever the Government are questioned on such issues, they treat the House as we have just been treated by the Minister. He can be eloquent and he knows his subject, but when he has something to hide he can be brief. He thinks that he has answered the debate, but he has not. He has made an opening statement on behalf of the Government and I hope that you will allow him to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) overheard the Minister say that he planned to put a nuclear power station in Littlehampton. That announcement, which was made before—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a sensible intervention.
      Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend was simply repeating what the Minister said earlier, when he threatened my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) with having the next nuclear power station—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should now get back to the amendments before the House.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      It is important to consider the effect of clause 10. What additional costs will be incurred by the authority, the council and licence-holders consequent on implementing the guidance, and how will that be passed on to consumers? The Government have introduced a clever mechanism that will not show up in public expenditure or taxation. The authority will be given authorisation by the Government to undertake certain measures and can tax the electricity and gas companies to pay for those measures, the cost of which will have to be passed on to consumers as a stealth tax. The consumer will get a bill without knowing that it has been increased by the same amount as every other gas bill, from whichever company supplies the gas or electricity. That is why it is a stealth tax. With the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has offered the Government a helpful way to be honest.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) is a good one? He proposed that a statement should be included in electricity and gas bills to show what proportion of the total results from Government policies. Was he present for the presentation of an excellent ten-minute rule Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), which proposed disclosure, in petrol prices, of the amount of tax levied in those prices?
      Mr. Bruce: I am sorry that I was not present for that because I was busy preparing this long and detailed speech, but I am sure that it is precisely analogous to what we are looking for.
      In Standing Committee, we discovered that the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority had bought a big City office block, with lots of glass and marble. Such costs are passed on to consumers, effectively by means of a stealth tax on the electricity and gas companies. A letter from the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council talks about the amendments that it will table in the House of Lords. I suppose that cronies will be appointed for that purpose, or else someone in the system will do it. One imagines that that council will be the consumer's friend, but that is not the case. It has costs and, under the Bill, they will be passed on in the same way.
      Will the new council tell consumers about the cost of the new authority? I suspect that it will not, and that the authority will claim to be really good value for money compared with the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council.
      1044
      I hope that I have encouraged the Minister to give a good response on those points to the House and to the country.
      Mr. Syms: This is the first time that I have contributed to the debate on this important Bill. I support amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which have been tabled in an honest and straightforward manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb).
      My hon. Friend has done Parliament a great service. Clause 10 provides that any guidance has to be laid before Parliament, but the House always has a problem with measurement. To do our job properly, we must assess the effect of any measure introduced by the Government.
      Amendment No. 24 centres around the impact assessment. It is not always possible for hon. Members to weigh up a cost. In Standing Committee, we have to debate topics very quickly. The impact assessment would enable us to reach better decisions with full information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton pointed out, a measure's consequences on bills are not always clear in the short term, but they can be substantial over a period of time.
      In my earlier intervention, I said that it would be more honest if bills contained information about the economic impact of Government policies. That would be more honest and transparent, but I can understand why the Government oppose that proposal, as it would show their intentions for the authority.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said that costs imposed on a private business amount to a stealth tax that will be passed on to consumers. Many people, such as pensioners, have difficulty paying their gas and electricity bills, and hon. Members hear many complaints about the cost of those services. The Bill will have an indirect and hidden impact on heating costs.
      The House often debates ways to help elderly and vulnerable people in the winter. Governments of all complexions like to make much of the sums that they make available to help people pay their heating bills. However, the costs incurred under clause 10 will have an impact on real people in real homes in real winters.
      I support amendment No. 24, which I think would make the Bill more honest and would lead to better measurement.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would accept the amendment if they had nothing to hide? By resisting the amendment, they are implicitly admitting that there will be significant on-charges to gas and electricity bills in the years to come.
      Mr. Syms: All hon. Members—including Conservative Members—are always tempted to interfere. It is our natural instinct. It is easy to sign up to international agreements, such as the Rio accord, that impact on domestic policy, and to frame a policy for next week or next month, without thinking through the implications.
      Amendment No. 24 would mean that the Government would have to justify the impact assessment findings in Standing Committee. That would be good for the Government, as they too would have to reconsider the measure, with the result that they might realise that

      1045
      the cost was greater than predicted and that they should rethink the proposal. That would concentrate the Government's mind and lead to more transparent and better government.
      These days, we believe in inclusive government, modernisation and freedom of information. I think that an impact assessment would be as helpful to the Government as it would be to the Opposition, whose role is to question the Government and ensure that they have thought their policies through.
      Mr. Gibb: I am disappointed that the Minister does not want to respond. He jumped up immediately at the start of the debate, without waiting to hear the comments of other hon. Members. However, we can continue the debate without his involvement, if that is how it has to be.
      The Minister is wrong not to accept the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said, if the Government have nothing to hide they should accept the amendments and prepare the impact assessment. The Government seem convinced that the consumer will not suffer from extra costs being imposed on them as a result of the Bill. I am convinced otherwise, as are other Conservative Members.
      The guidance that has been issued is broadly drafted. Even in the more narrowly drafted interpretation of that guidance prepared in the Ofgem consultation document from which I quoted, it is clear that the social action plan will cause significant costs to be incurred by the utility companies. Those costs will have to be passed on to the consumer. That is the point that Labour Members fail to understand. They view business as a bottomless pit full of vast amounts of cash for Rolls-Royce cars and luxury yachts for the directors of companies and shareholders. They think it best to grab that money and use it for social programmes, but that is not how business works. In fact, businesses must maximise profits to satisfy investors and shareholders. If they do not do that, business people will find themselves out of a job.
      As a result, even if the regulator regulates the price mechanism on the basis of the retail prices index minus x, all the costs will be passed on to the consumer. In addition, consumers will face a tripling of the energy efficiency levy as a result of the Bill. Conservatives fully support energy efficiency. It clearly will not yield the result for which the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe hopes—the replacement of nuclear power—but we can seek to reduce CO, emissions by ensuring that we do not waste electricity in homes and businesses.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend has moved on rather quickly from the fat cats. Does he appreciate—as would most people who can do simple mathematics—that when a gas or electricity company is forced to raise its prices by 10 or 20 per cent. because of the Government's measures, the regulator will increase the profit that it is allowed to make? The regulator calculates profit according to total costs, and if the costs rise by 10 or 20 per cent., so do the profits. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is trying to improve the situation for the fat cats, who will doubtless turn up as Labour party supporters and donors before they end up in the House of Lords where they can approve the Government's amendments.
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The costs legitimately incurred by companies can be used as
      1046
      a basis for future price increases. If the regulator regards the costs as legitimate, those costs will form the basis of future price reviews. The costs will simply be passed on to the consumer.
      The Bill is particularly irritating in that the general increase in competition that is occurring in the industry thanks to privatisation and the opening up of markets by the Conservative Government is continually bringing down prices, even under the meddlesome stewardship of the Labour Government. Many extra costs will be lost, because prices will not necessarily rise. Neither, however, will they fall by as much as they otherwise would have.
      Consumers are losing out. They are not benefiting by as much as they should from falling prices, and are suffering from hidden measures, such as the tripling of the energy efficiency levy from £1.20 to £3.60 on the average bill. That increase applies to each utility, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) often points out. In fact, it will mean an average £7.20 levy on bills, which is a form of stealth taxation. It is not an honest way in which to govern in a mature democracy.
      The use of stealth taxes has arisen as a direct consequence of Lady Thatcher's having made it impossible for any Government to increase the rate of income tax since the time when she was Prime Minister. It is now politically unacceptable to raise the basic rate or the upper rate. Governments have therefore found other methods of raising taxes, and the Government are past masters at doing so by stealth. It is time that we exposed stealth taxes so that our mature democracy can assess how much tax we are paying and how much public expenditure we are prepared to pay for.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for his point about indirect and hidden ways in which the Government are raising funds to implement their social programmes. I am disappointed—[Interruption.] I am sorry to repeat that phrase, and sorry that the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe objects to it, but I am disappointed by the hurried response of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs to a serious debate during the Report stage of what is supposed to be a flagship Bill. Despite my disappointment, and in view of the fact that we have had a debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 19

      PROVISION OF ADVICE AND INFORMATION TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND OTHER PERSONS
      7.45 pm
      Dr. Cable: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 14, line 17, leave out "or body".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 36, in page 14, line 18, leave out from beginning to "or" in line 19.
      No. 38, in page 14, line 25, leave out from "body" to end of line 28.
      Dr. Cable: May I first seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of information? My colleagues and I tabled four amendments that were logically connected, but

      1047
      the Chair, in its wisdom, has chosen three of them, but not the fourth, on which, in fact, the three were contingent. The effect of that is the amendments that we are debating would have exactly the opposite effect to that which we intended.
      May I ask whether the Speaker's provisional selection list is sufficiently provisional to allow for the readmission of amendment No. 33, or could you give me further advice on how I should proceed?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that Madam Speaker's decision on the selection of amendments is final.
      Dr. Cable: Naturally, I accept your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall therefore speak briefly on the three amendments, but shall not waste the House's time by entering into prolonged debate on amendments that we acknowledge to be defective as they stand.
      The Bill uses commercial confidentiality as a broad brush exemption from information that can be made available through the National Consumer Council. We regard that as a serious defect, which undermines the openness and transparency that we would wish from the consumer protection regime. We recognise that commercial confidentiality must sometimes be honoured and accepted, but a balance has to be struck between confidentiality and the right to know and to freedom of information.
      Our amendments were intended to try to ensure that a balance would be struck and that the council would have an obligation to balance commercial confidentiality against the value of open information. In the event of a dispute between those two objectives, the matter would have been referred to the Information Commission. I regret that because of the way in which the amendments have emerged, their effect would be to narrow freedom of information rather than broaden it. I do not want to achieve that, so I shall not trouble the Government to produce a reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 35

      ELECTRICITY LICENCE MODIFICATION REFERENCES
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 34, line 34, at end insert—
      '( ) In subsection (6), after "this section" there is inserted "or in carrying out functions under section 14A", after "the investigation" there is inserted "or the carrying out of those functions" and after "such investigation" there is inserted "or such functions".'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]

    Clause 37

      MODIFICATION FOLLOWING REPORT
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 35, line 42, at end insert—
      ' "(5) After considering any representations or objections made in response to proposals set out in a notice under subsection (3), the Authority shall give notice to the Competition Commission—

      (a) setting out the modifications it proposes to make to remedy or prevent the adverse effects specified in the report; and

      (b) stating the reasons for making the modifications.

      (6) The Authority shall include with the notice under subsection (5) a copy of any representations or objections received in relation to the notice under subsection (3).
      (7) If the period of four weeks from the date on which the notice under subsection (5) is given elapses without a direction under section 14A(l)(a) having been given to it, the Authority shall—

      (a) make the modifications set out in the notice; or

      (b) if a direction under section 14A(l)(b) has been given, make the modifications which are not specified in the direction.'.—[Mrs. Liddell]

    Clause 48

      GENERAL DUTIES OF ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTORS
      Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 48, line 36, at end insert—
      ';—

      (c) to facilitate the development of embedded generation;

      (d) to support the achievement of the Government's national renewable energy targets by facilitating small-scale renewable generation through net metering.'.—[Mr. Stunell]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 261.

      Division No. 172]

      [7.47 pm

      AYES

      Baker, Norman

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Moore, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Oaten, Mark

      Brake, Tom

      Öpik, Lembit

      Breed, Colin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Burnett, John

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

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Tyler, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Willis, Phil

      Hancock, Mike

      Harvey, Nick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. David Heath and

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Dr. Jenny Tonge.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Barron, Kevin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Battle, John

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Beard, Nigel

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Austin, John

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Banks, Tony

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Benton, Joe

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Best, Harold

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Betts, Clive

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Grocott, Bruce

      Borrow, David

      Grogan, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hain, Peter

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Hanson, David

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Browne, Desmond

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Healey, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hesford, Stephen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hill, Keith

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hoey, Kate

      Cann, Jamie

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Casale, Roger

      Hope, Phil

      Caton, Martin

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clapham, Michael

      Hurst, Alan

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Connarty, Michael

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cousins, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Crausby, David

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Darvill, Keith

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

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

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lepper, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dismore, Andrew

      Levitt, Tom

      Dobbin, Jim

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Doran, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lock, David

      Drew, David

      McAllion, John

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      McCabe, Steve

      Efford, Clive

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ennis, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Etherington, Bill

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McIsaac, Shona

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flint, Caroline

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gapes, Mike

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Maxton, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Meale, Alan

      Goggins, Paul

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Miller, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Skinner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

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

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mountford, Kali

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mudie, George

      Snape, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Spellar, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Stevenson, George

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Olner, Bill

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pond, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pope, Greg

      Timms, Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Tynan, Bill

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rammell, Bill

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rapson, Syd

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wills, Michael

      Rooney, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wood, Mike

      Roy, Frank

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Salter, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      Questions accordingly negatived.

    Clause 57

      Financial Penalties
      8 pm
      Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 54, line 46, at end insert—
      '(9) No penalty fixed by the Authority under this section may exceed 5 per cent, of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in clause 92, page 92, line 10, at end insert—
      '(9) No penalty fixed by the Authority under this section may exceed 5 per cent, of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).'.
      Mr. Gibb: The element of the Bill that is most universally criticised—there are many contender elements within it for that prize—is the penalty provisions in clauses 57 and 92. The provisions are criticised for imposing strict liability on utilities. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority can impose a fine regardless of culpability. The Bill is criticised because it applies to past transgressions regardless of the fact that a contravention was remedied as soon as it was made known. The current system works well, but the approach set out in the Bill is far more heavy handed. Companies can be fined for transgressions even when they have been put right after they have been notified of them.
      Under the current regime, once a transgression occurs, the regulator will inform the utility that it has contravened a licence condition or has failed to perform to the correct standards as set out in its performance requirements. It will then have a chance to put things right. After that, an order will be issued to make the utility do so. Only after that does the regulator issue an order that results in the utility being punished. That seems a far better approach to penalty provisions than what we have in the Bill.
      The clauses are criticised generally for their extremely limited appeal provisions, which amount to less than the appeal possibilities that are available under the judicial review rules. The element of the clauses that is most criticised is the fine itself, which has no upper limit. Clause 57 for electricity and clause 92 for gas provide only that the authority may impose on the licence holder a penalty of such amount as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. There is no mention of an upper limit. The fine could be £100, £1 million, £100 million or £100 billion. That is why the Electricity Association has said:
      The Bill does not set an upper limit for the financial penalty. It is the policy intention that any penalty imposed will be reasonable and proportionate to the contravention or failure. However, in the absence of firm legal provision, the Authority has considerable discretion, the very element that the Bill aims to eradicate. The electricity industry finds the Bill to be lacking in this respect and would wish to see a cap on the penalty that the Authority is able to impose included in the Bill.
      The entire electricity industry finds the provision unacceptable. It creates discretion and uncertainty in a Bill that, as we have been told time and again by the Secretary of State and other Ministers, has been drafted to eradicate uncertainty and to introduce a more certain regulatory framework. It does not have that effect in respect of its financial penalty provisions.
      PowerGen's view of the provisions is as follows:
      Companies are already subject to a variety of financial sanctions under the Companies Act 2000—
      I think that it means the Companies Act 1998—
      under price controls imposed by the regulator, and the compensation requirements to customers where service standards are not met … companies should not be exposed to the multiple risk of incurring financial penalties from a number of different sources, each determined in isolation. The level of any fine should take into account other financial sanctions on companies and the Bill should impose an upper limit on the level of fines that can be imposed.
      The concerns of the electricity and gas industries are that the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, which sets a limit on fines, can impose—
      Mr. Syms: Is there not also concern that if markets appreciate that the company may be fined and they cannot
      1052
      quantify what that fine will be, that may lead to unreasonable gyrations of the share price, with an impact on investment?
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It reveals the Government's lack of understanding of capital markets and how they work.
      The 1992 Act, which sets a limit, can impose fines of up to 10 per cent. of annual turnover. Under secondary legislation, that fine can be imposed, while the Bill is going through the House, for three years' worth of annual turnover. That results effectively in a fine equal to 30 per cent. of annual turnover. It is a real possibility that fines under the Bill could exceed these enormous sums, as the Government have not seen fit to impose any limit.
      In Committee, the Minister consistently refused to accept any maximum fine. She merely asserted that the fine had to be reasonable. It was alarming when the right hon. Lady responded to the debate on these matters in Committee. She said:
      I suppose that a serious contravention could attract a penalty of more than 10 per cent.
      She gave some examples of when there might be a fine in excess of 10 per cent. of a company's annual turnover. She said that one example might be
      if there were instances of widespread, repeated and serious malpractice—doorstep selling tactics, perhaps.
      Another example that she gave was
      the persistent failure to restore supplies after predictable power outages in winter.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 March 2000; c. 555–56.1
      The fact that the Bill does not have an upper limit to the fines that can be imposed is not an inadvertent omission. The Minister has made it clear that such an outcome is intended, and that there may be circumstances where fines in excess of those that can be imposed under the provisions of the 1992 Act can be imposed under the Bill when it is enacted. That creates huge concern because the threat of fines of that magnitude hanging over the industry will cause particular problems. It creates an enormous regulatory risk. It creates also a fluctuating share price as attempts are made to try to assess the level of fine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) so rightly said.
      It is the regulatory risk that is the problem. Fines can be imposed regardless of whether the contravention of the licence conditions was deliberate or inadvertent. A fine can be imposed on a contravention that has already occurred but of which the utility company was unaware. Many of the licence conditions are subjective and widely framed. It is possible that a utility company could innocently be contravening a licence condition or a standards of performance requirement because it took a different interpretation of the wording from the regulatory authority.
      Mr. Syms: Does my hon. Friend think that fines should be time limited? It is possible that contravention in the past may lead to multiple fines in future.
      Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes another valid point. The Bill is not retrospective in the sense that any contravention that took place before it becomes law will not be considered. After that, and way into the future, any past transgression can he subject to a fine. The possibility

      1053
      of a fine of the imposition that could bankrupt the company will cause investors to demand a higher rate of return. They will want to be compensated for taking a higher regulatory risk. That is not a theoretical consideration that has been dreamed up by Opposition Members. It is a genuine concern of which the Government must be aware, given all the briefings and representations that they have had from the companies. We are talking of severe fines that could bankrupt a company overnight. It is necessary to assess whether a fine is to be imposed if the risk is to be assessed. Given that that cannot be assessed, investors will require a higher rate of return to compensate them for the ever-present risk of a bankrupting fine being imposed.
      That in turn will increase the companies' borrowing costs. They will face a higher interest charge. We are talking of companies that are highly capital intensive in terms of pipe works, pylons and wires. Even the supply companies have large capital investments in computer programmes and networks, which are all financed by borrowing. That results in high interest charges, which are passed on to the consumer. The CBI has said that
      over-stringent methods may increase regulatory risk, costing industry more in borrowing, and ultimately increasing the burden on the end consumer.
      That is the key point. Extra costs will be passed on to the consumer, either in higher electricity and gas prices or in prices that will not fall by as much as they would have done otherwise. The limitless fining provisions are therefore a disaster for the consumer. They underline how deeply Ministers fail to understand how business works, free enterprise operates and the capital markets function.
      The Government cannot keep hitting business with more and more regulation and more and heavier fines while using more anti-business language. Phrases such as "rip-off Britain" and "naming and shaming" have all been used by Ministers. Business cannot withstand such pressures for long without there being consequences. Those consequences always fall on the poor consumer; they do not fall on the big fat international capitalist that Ministers have in mind. Consumers suffer either because a company disappears, which reduces competition, or because the investors in the companies require higher returns.
      Dr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why—perhaps he has given us the reason—after 18 years of Tory rule, the car companies used to refer to Britain as treasure island?
      Mr. Gibb: I think that we should leave the issue of car pricing for another day.
      Of course, the businesses that I have described are run by people who, like the rest of us, have human failings. They make mistakes and they will contravene licence conditions and standards of performance from time to time.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend has just been given an exact example of how the Government consider the electricity and gas companies to be a milch cow from which they can extract money. The point about the motor
      1054
      industry that the Minister was so keen to throw at my hon. Friend does not reflect the experience of the people in Ford or Rover who are about to lose their jobs.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The amendment is quite tightly drawn and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) were not drawn away from it.
      Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the Minister's comment reveals the Government's misunderstanding of how business functions. They throw out phrases and cast out words and their remarks matter more than if they were uttered by other politicians or members of the public. When Ministers say such things, they cause severe damage.
      The people who run businesses are human and they will fail from time to time. They will contravene licence conditions and standards of performance from time to time. Of course, regulations are needed to ensure that such transgressions are deterred in the utility sector and that they are kept to a minimum. However, the Government seek to extract the extra pound of flesh. The anti-business attitudes from the recesses of their old Labour heritage and instincts keep on re-emerging and they cause real damage to some of this country's most precious business assets.
      Ministers fail to understand that the people who pay for those attitudes are not a mythical group of fat capitalists; the consumer always pays, just as it is always middle Britain that pays the Government's new stealth taxes. The average electricity and gas consumer will pay the cost of the extra-regulatory risk that the Bill and its penalty provisions will cause.
      Amendments No. 26 and 27 would cap the level of the fine that the regulatory authority can impose. They suggest a cap of 5 per cent. of the annual turnover of the businesses concerned, but if the Government think that another figure is more appropriate, we may be able to support them. It is important that there is a cap of some sort. Without it, we shall damage the interests of the very consumers whom the Bill is meant to protect. I hope that the Government will, this time, respond to the debate far more constructively, so that the House can hear the arguments that were put in Committee about why the Government think that limitless fines on the utility companies are so vital. Such fines will undo all the potential good for the protection of the consumer that the Government purport to be doing. Those extra costs, arising from the higher regulatory risk, will have to be paid for by someone. That someone will be the consumer.
      Mr. Syms: I know that we all want to make progress, so I shall be brief.
      I support amendments Nos. 26 and 27. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made compelling arguments that I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have listened to and concentrated on. The key point is that, in the capitalist system with limited companies and a corporate regime, it is important to be able to assess risk. If, as under clause 57, it is not possible to assess risk, there will be problems for companies, particularly those that are publicly quoted.

      1055
      8.15 pm
      Under the corporate regime, such businesses have to abide by certain rules and have to produce their accounts in a certain way. However, an arbitrary decision of the regulatory authority could lead to a devastating impact on a business. That business may have shareholders, among whom many may be pensioners, or it may be owned by pension funds. Employers in the business may have share options or they may look forward to bonuses. Therefore, amendment No. 26 would quantify the maximum penalty that an authority could levy against a business, so that risk could be quantified by those who make judgments in the market.
      As the clause is drafted, there could be a regime of fines that are not time limited and a company could be caught for what it had done several years ago, and the fines could be multiple.
      Dr. Howells: There is a time limit. The penalty must be imposed within 12 minutes—[Interruption.] It would be all right if it was within 12 minutes. The penalty must be imposed within 12 months of the offence taking place.
      Mr. Syms: I thank the Minister for that explanation and for correcting me on that point.
      However, there is a problem in that there could be multiple fines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton pointed out, a limit of 10 per cent. applies to fines made under the Competition Act 1998, but there is no limit to the fines made under the Bill. It is important to set limits, so that people know how to react. It is perfectly possible for us in the Chamber to frame legislation on the basis that everyone is reasonable. However, unreasonable people sometimes operate reasonable legislation in an unreasonable way. That could disrupt the market and have a dire effect on a business, with consequences for those who invest in it and those who work for it.
      The amendments are well worth considering. I hope that the Government will listen to the force of our arguments and accept them.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: This is a crucial element in the Bill.
      Mrs. Liddell: Sit down.
      Mr. Bruce: The Minister picks me up immediately, but I think that this is a crucial part of the Bill, and that is the reason for the amendments.
      Conservative Members have been concerned by the interventionist aspects of the Bill that will enable the Secretary of State to issue reams of regulations directing the regulator to have regard to a whole host of political imperatives and social policy aims that are more properly the role of government. We are concerned that the detail of these measures is not contained in the Bill and we have learned from past experience of this Government to be cautious of the detail that appears in secondary legislation. [Interruption.] The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs wants to know where my remarks come from. I have a speech writer; I use them occasionally to keep them in work. He will be pleased to know that there are many pages of this.
      The Bill will give the Government a raft of new powers, such as those that will enable fuel poverty to be tackled and there to promote energy efficiency and the
      1056
      use of electricity from renewable resources. The regulators will have the power to impose tough fines on companies guilty of bad practice or poor performance, such as mis-selling, interruption to supplies and the time it takes to reconnect customers. There will be no upper limit on the fines that the regulators can impose.
      On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) tabled amendments Nos. 26 and 27, which would limit fines to 5 per cent. of the turnover of the licence holder. That is crucial because of the provisions of the Competition Act 1998, in which the Government argued there should be a limit. We believe that not only should the fines levied under this Bill be reasonable, but there should be certainty about the maximum amount.
      Utility groups are wary about the extent to which the new powers allow public bodies to interfere in the affairs of the privatised utilities. The Electricity Association, to which I know the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs listens carefully, states:
      The Government is giving itself considerable new powers to direct regulation. We want to see these used judiciously and transparently, with proper consultation, avoiding regulatory shocks which have the effect of increasing uncertainty, which in turn leads to increased costs. However, ministers have acknowledged this, and we take heart from their declared commitment to regulatory stability.
      The association said that before it had been consulted by Ministers. Having given that public warning, it believed privately that it would get from the Government the assurances that it wanted. Clearly, those assurances have not been made, and the association is concerned about that, as are Opposition Members.
      The Times reports that competition experts have been shocked by the proposal for unlimited fines, stating:
      Competition experts were astounded the Bill imposes no limit on the fines the regulator could impose on companies. The regulator has carte blanche to determine a tariff of fines which he must publish and companies will have a right of appeal. But the failure to impose a limit means fines could exceed the maximum level under the Competition Act of 10 per cent. of turnover.
      Although the water industry is no longer included in the Bill, it is significant that the outgoing Director General of Ofwat, Ian Wyatt, has criticised the Bill for its over-regulatory approach, saying:
      I find the bill over-complicated because it is over-prescriptive. Nothing is left to good sense.
      Those words of condemnation come from a man who has been a regulator.
      Dr. Howells: I have a great deal of time for Mr. Ian Byatt—his name is not Wyatt—because he has been a good regulator. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we removed the water clauses from the Bill some time ago?
      Mr. Bruce: The Minister knows very well that I am fully aware that the Government removed those clauses, but, despite all their powers, the Government and their spin doctors were incapable of silencing Ian Byatt. I am sure that the Minister would have been pleased if I had not read out the quotation of a long-standing regulator for whom the Minister has just expressed great respect. I hope that he will mark those words, and to make sure that he does so, I shall read them again. Mr. Byatt said:
      I find the bill over-complicated because it is over-prescriptive. Nothing is left to good sense.

      1057
      That is as great a condemnation as we have heard of the Bill from any source. Ian Byatt is not playing a party political card; he is simply expressing his experience of being a regulator.
      The powers to enable fuel poverty to be tackled and to promote energy efficiency and electricity from renewable sources and other such powers—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendments refer specifically to fixed penalties.
      Mr. Bruce: This sentence will, when I have finished it, directly relate to that matter. All those powers are enforceable by virtue of the fines. The Minister for the Environment stated:
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be able to require electricity supply companies to generate a proportion of electricity from renewable sources. This will be enforceable by the regulator using his general enforcement powers, including the power to impose monetary penalties.
      As a person well versed in how legislation is introduced, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would be surprised to learn that such regulatory powers are backed by unlimited fines.
      When trying to persuade companies to fulfil certain criteria by giving them incentives, we have never before backed that policy by having unlimited fines for companies that fail to meet those criteria. That is unreasonable. I understand why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you jumped to your feet, believing that the powers that I was describing could not be related to fines. That shows how ridiculous it is for the Government to enforce those powers by imposing fines.
      Although the Government may sincerely believe that prescription achieves what might be described as socially desirable ends, the evidence would suggest that those ends can be achieved, and have been achieved, without prescription, through the very fact of competition in the utilities.
      The amendments are sensible and simply seek to ensure that the Government will be reasonable in imposing the fines, as they have said they will be, and that the fines will be capped. The Minister may want to impose the 10 per cent. cap used in the Competition Act. We tabled several amendments about that in Committee, but when the Bill is on Report, we have to table a different amendment that has not been discussed in Committee. The exact level of the cap can be negotiated, perhaps in the other place.
      We need certainty from the Government. Certainty is almost more important than the capping level itself because it will enable people to calculate the additional cost of regulation in working out financing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) pointed out, financing is an important issue. The Government might like to give way to the Opposition on this issue. We have all worked hard on the Bill, and we deserve to achieve the certainty for which the industry is asking.
      Dr. Howells: I thank hon. Members for their contributions. We have heard interesting statements, but I do not include in that the rather patronising comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who believes that he is the only person with insight into how business works. He was a tax adviser at one time, and tax advisers no doubt have their part to play in making the wheels of business turn.
      1058
      The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made a thoughtful contribution, as ever. Unlike the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, he recognises that companies that try to enter the gas and electricity markets understand very well that they must try to comply with licence requirements. If companies do not comply, they will face penalties; if they do comply, penalties will not apply. If they commit a breach, the penalty is limited to that which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Companies can make a challenge through the courts if they believe that the penalty is not reasonable; the courts can quash unreasonable penalties, or substitute lesser penalties.
      The picture painted by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is one of companies quaking in terror at the thought of what might happen—that is how he sees the relationship between the industry and the Government, but it is not the picture that we see. As he said in Committee, he sometimes acts as the conduit for the views of the more paranoid sections of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors—and he revels in that role.
      The Government do not believe that the amendment will improve the Bill. As I pointed out in Committee, the most important protection for licensed utilities is that any penalty imposed must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to quote me saying that.
      Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Howells: Yes—it is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Bruce: The Minister is trying the soft-soap, soft-words approach. Our question is a simple one. In the recently passed Competition Act, the Government decided to set a limit on penalties of 10 per cent. of turnover. Why is it appropriate to have such a limit in that legislation, but not in this Bill?
      8.30 pm
      Dr. Howells: The simple answer is that the two were entirely different Bills and they will, I hope, be entirely different Acts. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, because he follows these matters attentively, the Competition Act was closely modelled on the European model, which sets a cap of 10 per cent. of turnover on the penalty that can be imposed. However, the Utilities Bill has different requirements.
      The authority will have to produce and consult on a statement of policy on the imposition of penalties and it must have regard to that statement when imposing a penalty. The authority will have to take certain steps, including holding public consultation, before finalising the imposition of a penalty. The company concerned will be able to challenge in the courts both the imposition and the amount of any penalty, as well as the payment schedule determined by the authority. The amendment would introduce a further limitation on those powers, by specifically limiting to 5 per cent. of turnover any penalty imposed. As the hon. Member for South Dorset says, that would not even align the maximum penalty with the limit

      1059
      under the Competition Act, which is set at 10 per cent. of turnover—the figure that appeared in the Opposition's amendment tabled in Committee.
      In some cases, a penalty of 5 per cent. of turnover or less might be reasonable, when all of the circumstances of the case have been taken into account. However, in cases involving more serious contraventions, such a penalty might not be appropriate. In proposing a maximum penalty of 5 per cent. of turnover, do the Opposition intend to prevent the authority from imposing a penalty that is reasonable in all the circumstances of a case in which a penalty of more than 5 per cent. of turnover would be reasonable? Are they saying that, in no circumstances—even if price fixing and other serious market distortions have resulted in millions of consumers being ripped off—should companies be fined more than 5 per cent. of turnover?
      Why do the Conservatives do such things? I know that they loathe the very idea of a regulator having the power to do anything other than slap a company's wrists. Indeed, that was all that regulators could do until we passed the Competition Act. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton believes that serious market distortions occur from time to time—cartels are formed, price-fixing arrangements made, complex monopolies operated—surely he accepts that the regulators should have more power to step in. Regulators should be able to warn companies at first, if necessary; then, in cases of serious breach, they should be able to hit the companies extremely hard with a fine that will ensure that such a breach never occurs again.
      Mr. Gibb: The Minister has raised two points. First, there is no warning: that is what happened under the regulatory regime that is being replaced. Now, fines can be imposed for past transgressions, with no warning—the fact of their having happened will be sufficient justification, regardless of whether they were deliberate, inadvertent or the result of negligence. Secondly, I should be happy to listen to any proposal for a limit other than 5 per cent. Our amendment in Committee proposed a 10 per cent. limit; we proposed 5 per cent. so that the issue could be debated again on Report. If the Minister has some other figure, we shall listen. The point is, we need a limit—it is the lack of a limit that creates a regulatory risk.
      Dr. Howells: The proposed limit was 10 per cent. in Committee, it is 5 per cent. on Report, and it could be 2.5 per cent. tomorrow. The point is that, for the reasons that I have given, the Government will not set a limit. We believe that a limit could impose serious constraint on the effectiveness of the powers of regulators, and that would be at odds with the Government's objective of protecting the interests of consumers. Furthermore, the Government believe that a limit is unnecessary.
      The Government consider that the financial penalty provisions give a real measure of protection to consumers and the companies concerned, and that they will provide genuine benefits for consumers and for companies that strive to adhere to their obligations rather than taking short cuts. The amendments would undermine that.
      1060
      I urge the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw the amendment and not to press the other amendment. Should he seek to divide the House, I urge hon. Members to vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Gibb rose—
      Dr. Howells: Disappointing.
      Mr. Gibb: It was an outrageous rather than a disappointing response.
      Industry and others wish to see many of the Bill's provisions on the statute book as soon as possible—for example, NETA and the separation of distribution and electricity supply—but the penalties to be imposed on industry for contravening licence conditions and for failing to perform to the standards required in the Bill alarm industry.
      The Minister says that companies have to understand that they must comply with the licence conditions, but they do understand that. Those companies are run by people who want to obey the conditions to which they have signed up. They want to meet the conditions relating to standards of performance and to provide a good service to their customers, but there will be inadvertent transgressions. The Bill, in contrast to the current regulatory regime, makes no allowance for inadvertent transgressions. Any transgression—inadvertent, deliberate or otherwise—will be covered and will give rise to a penalty. That is the difference between this regulatory regime and the current one. There is no chance of companies being able to put matters right. Having tried to put things right, they will still be subject to a fine, which could be sufficient to wipe out the company because there is no limit in the Bill.
      The Minister says that the amendments are at odds with the objective of protecting the consumer, but I am afraid that the limitless fine provisions are at odds with the objective of protecting the consumer. If a fine is imposed, it will ultimately be borne by the consumer. All moneys paid out by companies will ultimately be paid by the consumer.
      The increased regulatory risk caused by the limitless fine will increase the cost of capital to companies, which again will be passed on to the consumer. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister finds some of my responses patronising. They are not meant to be. I know that the Minister is having a go at me today, but the fact remains that both Ministers demonstrate a lack of understanding of how business works. I say that not because I know anything about their education, experience or background, but because of what they are saying about the Bill and the way in which they are trying to justify the provisions. They fail to understand the consequences of the measures that they propose. Describing elements of the CBI and the IOD as paranoid will not go down well with them.
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman distorts my words. I said that he likes to paint himself as a conduit for the most paranoid sections of the CBI.
      Mr. Gibb: As I said in Committee, I would be a conduit for anybody with whose representations I agree, whether they be consumer groups, business groups or

      1061
      individual constituents. I shall continue to do that despite the Minister's criticism, because that is what we are here to do. Our task is to deliver the views of all sections of society in the House, particularly those that are affected by the Bill. British consumers will be enormously damaged by the Bill, which will add enormously to the costs that industry will have to pick up and then pass on to the consumer.
      It is staggering how many times Opposition Members have to repeat that measures that add to industry's costs—whether in higher regulatory risk, higher interest charges or costs incurred in having to comply with guidance issued by the Secretary of State—will ultimately be paid for by the consumer. That reveals a lack of understanding about how industry works. It is a pity that, as a consequence of the Bill, customers will not benefit from the falls in electricity and gas prices to which they would otherwise be entitled.
      We have debated the amendment sufficiently. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 60

      OBLIGATION IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 60, leave out lines 37 to 40.—[Mr. Pope.]
      Question put,That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided:Ayes 260, Noes 30.

      Division No. 173]

      [8.40 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Alexander, Douglas

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Austin, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Banks, Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Best, Harold

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Betts, Clive

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Crausby, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Darvill, Keith

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

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

      Browne, Desmond

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burgon, Colin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dismore, Andrew

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Doran, Frank

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Baker, Norman

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Moore, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Oaten, Mark

      Brake, Tom

      Öpik, Lembit

      Breed, Colin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Burnett, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

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

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Willis, Phil

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Hancock, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Harvey, Nick

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. David Heath.

      Dowd, Jim

      McCabe, Steve

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Efford, Clive

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ennis, Jeff

      McIsaac, Shona

      Etherington, Bill

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gardiner, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Maxton, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Meale, Alan

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Goggins, Paul

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Grocott, Bruce

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

      Grogan, John

      Hain, Peter

      Mountford, Kali

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mudie, George

      Hanson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Healey, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Norris, Dan

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hesford, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hill, Keith

      Olner, Bill

      Hoey, Kate

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Plaskitt, James

      Hurst, Alan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hutton, John

      Pond, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rammell, Bill

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kemp, Fraser

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kidney, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rooney, Terry

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roy, Frank

      Lepper, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Salter, Martin

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lock, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Touhig, Don

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Snape, Peter

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Soley, Clive

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Spellar, John

      Tynan, Bill

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wills, Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wood, Mike

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Todd, Mark

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 104, line 1, leave out Clauses 100 to 105.—[Mr. Pope.]
      Motion to transfer clause 107, agreed to.

    Clause 108

      ELECTRICITY LICENCE CONDITIONS
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 111, line 33, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 10 on page 112 and insert—
      'After section 14 of the 1989 Act (modification following report) there is inserted—'.—[Mr. Pope.]

      Motion to transfer clause 108, agreed to.

    Clause 109
      EXTENT OF PART III
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 114, line 7, leave out Clause 109.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Clause 110
      FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 114, line 14, leave out from "the" to "by" in line 15 and insert "Authority".—[Mr. Pope.]
    Clause 113

      SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 114, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3) Any amendment or repeal made by this Act has the same extent as the enactment being amended or repealed.
      (4) Subject to subsection (3), this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

    Schedule 2

      THE GAS AND ELECTRICITY CONSUMER COUNCIL
      Mr. Jim Cousins: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 117, line 28, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Council shall maintain staff in each region for which there is a Government Office for the Regions.'.
      Schedule 2 provides for the establishment of the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council. The amendment would ensure that staff of the council would be available in each region. The proposals on which consultation is taking place through the shadow Gas and Electricity Consumer Council are causing considerable concern in the north-east of England. I guess that they will cause similar concern elsewhere when the details become clear.
      The proposals provide two alternatives: the physical presence of staff of the new Gas and Electricity Consumer Council in either three or five places in mainland United Kingdom. That availability of professional staff is not sufficient to deal with the problems and complaints of consumers. It will give rise to considerable difficulty, and will not provide the service that the Government intend the new council to offer.
      A particular feature of both proposals on the table for consultation gives rise to concern in the north-east. Either all the north-east, in one case, or part of it, in the other, would be served from Scotland. Given your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister, 1 hesitate to quibble about that, but the experiment has already been tried, and has failed. During the 1990s, British Gas attempted to operate both its customer accounts services and its technical repair servicing in the north-east of England from Scotland. The system did not work, and had to be reversed. That is why there is concern about this proposal.
      There is also concern because the consumer councils in the north-east are dealing with a staggeringly large percentage of the total volume of complaints. In 1999, half the complaints to the Gas Consumers Council went to the council in the north-east of England. That is not surprising, because the north-east of England contains the greatest concentration of people with pre-payment meters and budget payment plans. Those are the two factors that most often give rise to consumer complaints. Moreover, it was the north-east that experienced the first "hit" of consumer problems with the dual fuel provisions, which were piloted there by Northern Electric. Those provisions gave rise to a huge volume of consumer complaints.
      The lack of professional staff with expertise to help consumers with their problems will cause considerable difficulty in the north-east. The age of welfare dependency is coming to an end: consumers want a voice for themselves, although they frequently require

      1065
      professional assistance and back-up. They do not passively accept the failures in service, difficulties with charging and problems with service delivery that were accepted without complaint in the past. I hope that the Government will take seriously the need for professional staff to be available to deal with consumer complaints in every region of England.
      Mrs. Liddell: I well understand the reasons for the amendment. It is important for consumers' views to be taken into account, wherever those consumers may be. The amendment would insert in the Bill a requirement for the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council to maintain staff in each region for which there is a Government office. That would not necessarily comply with the structure of the energy industries, and might result in a disjointed arrangement in terms of the location of companies. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who is anxious to ensure that the voice of consumers is heard, to pause and consider whether the degree of prescription that he suggests is necessary or appropriate.
      Our general approach on organisational issues is to give the council a clear set of functions, but also to give it the flexibility that will allow it to organise itself in the way that it considers best suited to the fulfilling of those functions. Ours is an arm's-length approach, and it strikes us as the right one. If an organisation is given a job for which it will be accountable, it makes sense to enable it to organise itself cost-effectively.
      The idea of a staff presence in each region might be attractive in the short term, but it would not necessarily be attractive in the longer term as the nature of the industry changed. Increasingly—especially now that gas and electricity can be offered by the same company—companies are centred in different regional capitals, serving industry and consumers from those regional bases.
      9 pm
      Consumers' needs and requirements may change, just as the industry changes; the structure of the gas and electricity industry may change further. The Bill ensures that there is the necessary flexibility to allow those changes to be taken into account.
      It is more important for the Bill to get the functions of the council—the outputs, if you like—right than to prescribe in detail how they should be delivered, but I recognise how important it is to ensure that regional issues are taken into account. For example, the chairman of the Gas Consumers Council, who will become the chairman of the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, has recently consulted on that organisational structure. She will come back with a final set of proposals following the consultation. I have said to her that it is important that she considers the outputs.
      My hon. Friend may care to reflect on whether regional needs could be met by the establishment of regional panels, as distinct from regional offices. Many issues will be raised, including that of pre-payment meters, which is of considerable importance in my constituency because of the socio-economic mix of the people there. We may not need the office to have a specific regional focus, provided that a regional perspective is used in dealing with complaints.
      1066
      I am anxious to ensure that when the chairman makes her proposals, she includes mechanisms to ensure that the views of consumers throughout the country are taken into account. However, I have grave doubts about whether an extensive office network based on the Government office areas is the most cost-effective way to do that. There is no such overlap between Government office boundaries and the gas and electricity companies. Many consumer issues will have a national perspective. For instance, one of the issues that we have discussed a lot during consideration of the Bill is doorstep mis-selling. That is happening throughout the country and we are all anxious about it, so I ask my hon. Friend to consider the case that I have made.
      Mr. Cousins: I do not want to detain us for long, but I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that she intends consumers in each region to have ready access—at no cost, or minimal cost—to the sort of professional back-up that the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council is being set up to deliver for people with complaints and anxiety about quality of service.
      Mrs. Liddell: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I hope that, having been given it, he will be prepared to consider withdrawing his amendment.
      Mr. Cousins: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 3

      FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC..
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 120, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 12, in page 120, line 4, leave out from "liabilities" to "and" in line 5 and insert "under section 3"
      No. 13, in page 120, line 6, leave out "or 103(3)".
      No. 14, in page 120, line 44, leave out from first "the" to "under" in line 45 and insert "Council".—[Mr. Pope.]

    Schedule 6
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 125, leave out lines 29 to 38.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Schedule 8

      REPEALS
      Amendments made:No. 16, in page 133, line 21, column 3, leave out—
      'the Director General of Telecommunications'.
      No. 17, in page 133, line 36, column 3, leave out—
      'the Director General of Telecommunications'.
      No. 18, in page 133, line 44, column 3, leave out—
      'the Director General of Telecommunications'.
      No. 19, in page 134, leave out lines 5 to 18.—[Mr. Pope.]

    Title

      UTILITIES
      Amendments made: No. 20, in title, line 2, leave out from " Authority" to "to" in line 4 and insert—
      'and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council'.
      No. 21, in title, line 5, leave out "telecommunications,".—[Mr. Pope.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.4 pm
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am sure that all Members would like to thank those who served so ably on the Standing Committee of the Bill, giving detailed scrutiny to the various measures—providing the House with the opportunity on Report to consider a Bill to which the Standing Committee had given due consideration. Special thanks must go to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who chaired the proceedings of the Standing Committee. On behalf of all Members, we would like to thank them for doing so.
      The Utilities Bill forms part of the Government's agenda of modernisation and reform. It makes important reforms to the regulation of the gas and electricity industries.
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: There is no doubt that this is a good Bill. It does, however, for the first time, extend some of the regulator's powers to the offshore sector of the oil and gas industry. There is some concern in the industry that there should be a requirement on the regulator to consult the industry, particularly on proposals that may affect competitiveness and, ultimately, consumers. Clause 4(4) imposes a general requirement on the regulator to consult. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that provision includes consultation on matters relating to the offshore oil and gas industry?
      Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the interests of the offshore oil and gas industry, and I understand his concerns that the Bill's consultation provision does not refer explicitly to the offshore oil and gas industry. However, I reassure him that the consultation that will have to occur extends to the offshore oil and gas industry. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting his concerns.
      The Utilities Bill puts consumers at the heart of regulation. The Bill's aim is to deliver a modern, efficient and fair framework, reflecting the growing convergence of the two sectors. It provides a consistent, accountable and transparent regime that will help to reduce costs for both gas and electricity. Consequently, it will deliver real lower prices for both domestic or business consumers.
      The Bill will provide more effective competition in the gas and electricity market. Conservative Members' approach to utilities was to privatise them quickly, selling national assets—as has been found in various reports by the National Audit Office—at a knock-down price and without any real concern for the structure of the industry that was left behind. No real consideration was given to
      1068
      the needs of consumers or to whether they received a good and fair deal because of the changes. A regulation system was introduced that created a climate of uncertainty and failed to deliver effective competition. The system was inherently unstable. The Government felt that it was important to introduce a Utilities Bill to remedy all the wrongs caused by the Conservatives' approach to the utilities sector.
      The Bill introduces new electricity trading arrangements, which we are confident will produce reductions in wholesale electricity prices of at least 10 per cent. and form an important part of the energy statement that I made earlier this week. It will merge the gas and electricity regulators, to reflect the rapid convergence of those two markets. It will establish a single and stronger consumer council, which is better able to advocate consumers' interests, and it will put consumers first. For the first time, the regulator will have a principal objective of protecting the consumer interest.
      We want the regulator to examine particularly the needs of those who are on a low income, of pensioners and of consumers in rural areas. I hope that that approach will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      The Bill introduces a power for the authority to impose financial penalties for past and continuing breaches of licence conditions and other obligations. It contains reserve powers to protect and assist disadvantaged consumers. It sets targets for energy efficiency.
      The Utilities Bill provides many changes that will be of real and lasting benefit to consumers, both domestic and business. It reflects a new approach to the utilities sector. Real improvements will be delivered. It is a Bill that meets our objectives of modernisation and reform, and I commend it to the House.
      9.9 pm
      Mrs. Browning: The Utilities Bill has been a shambles. It is rare indeed for the debate on a Bill's remaining stages to begin with a motion to recommit it to Committee, but it is unprecedented for half the major provisions of a Government Bill to be removed, nine sittings into its Committee stage, because of issues that were quite clearly foreseeable before the Bill was published.
      Telecoms were removed because of the communication White Paper to be published in the autumn. DTI Ministers must have known about that—or perhaps they did not. One begins to wonder what is going on at the DTI and whether Ministers are focused on policy development.
      Water was also removed—in this case because later this year DETR is to publish its own water Bill. We still have not discovered whether DTI Ministers knew about that when they included water in the Utilities Bill.
      On Second Reading it was clear that the Bill required several hundred drafting amendments. One reason given for that was that the parliamentary draftsman responsible had been ill in the weeks before Second Reading. The Utilities Bill was supposed to be one of the Government's flagship Bills, but they introduced it regardless of whether or not the preparation had been completed. If that was the case, why is it that, even as late as mid-April, the Government are still tabling amendments and new clauses, some of which came to the Committee directly from the draftsman's pen?

      1069
      The Bill has been unprecedented in its incompetence in respect of policy, drafting and delivery, but it is hugely important in what it will ultimately achieve.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard the Secretary of State say that the Bill cures the utilities of all the problems that were left by the Conservative Government—when he has already taken two of the utilities out of the Bill. Clearly, he has produced a dog's dinner rather than a cure.
      Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend, who served on the Committee, is absolutely right. Perhaps this is the appropriate moment for me to pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friends did in Committee, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).
      On the plus side, in clause 66 the Bill paves the way for new electricity trading arrangements, which we and industry welcome. Nearly £750 million is being spent on developing the new electricity market that the Government expect and that we all hope will deliver lower electricity prices.
      The Bill merges the electricity and gas regulators into a new combined Ofgem. That is also welcome as it makes sense for those industries to be jointly regulated since they have started to supply each others' products. However, large bureaucracies tend to grow even larger, so it is a pity that the Government failed in Committee to accept our amendments that would have restricted the spending of Ofgem to rises of no more than the rate of inflation.
      We welcome the new combined Gas and Electricity Consumer Council. The Bill also separates the licensing of the distribution and supply of electricity. We welcome that too, as it further defines and confines the area that remains a natural monopoly. That should mean that there is scope to reduce regulatory involvement in due course in those areas that are fully open to competition, but it is clear from the Bill that regulation is to have new and expanded objectives that will make it increasingly difficult for regulation to recede as competition increases.
      I now turn to the minuses in the Bill. It creates a new range of objectives for the Secretary of State and for the new regulatory authority to impose on the gas and electricity utilities. No longer is the regulator's role simply to mimic competition where natural monopoly prevails. Now its role is to deliver the Government's social and environmental objectives. However worth while those objectives may be, it is for the Government to implement them through Government programmes and not to burden business with their delivery. As a result of the imposition of new and ever more costly demands on gas and electricity suppliers, the costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer in their gas and electricity bills—something that the Secretary of State should bear in mind when he so readily proclaims this to be a Bill for consumers. The Government's social program, rather than being financed through taxation, which is levied according to income, will now be funded through household bills, which are paid according to usage. So large families and the elderly will pay for the Government's social and environmental programmes.
      Also on the minus side are the limitless fines that the Bill will enable the regulatory authority to impose on the utilities, as we discussed again this evening. Not even
      1070
      the Competition Act 1998, with its draconian fines of up to 10 per cent. of turnover, can match the Utilities Bill in its scope for high fines. The Secretary of State should remember that corporate fines often find their way back into the pricing mechanism for consumers. The consequence will be a huge increase in the level of regulatory risk being faced by the industry. Higher regulatory risk means higher rewards for the provider of capital to the industry to compensate for the increased risk. That in turn translates into higher interest costs, which inevitably end up being passed on to the consumer.
      The Bill has been trumpeted as shifting the balance in the utilities away from the shareholder to the consumer. The reality is that the consumer will pick up the tab. Privatisation of electricity and gas, opposed by Labour and predicted by the Prime Minister as leading to higher prices, has delivered huge cuts in the cost of electricity and gas to the consumer: they are now 30 per cent. cheaper in real terms. Competition has delivered the savings and the Bill demotes the promotion of competition to a second order objective.
      The Bill will replace the promotion of competition with the promotion of yet more regulation. It reflects the Government's attitude that business is generally up to no good and that only the benign hand of increased intervention and regulation can remedy that. Reference has been made again tonight to fat cats, which reminds us that it was the Secretary of State who ran the so-called fat cat unit at Millbank towers.
      We are seeing a new form of government intervention. It is quintessentially the third way—it invites a more powerful, more expensive and more interventionist regulator to second-guess management decisions and impose on industry new burdens to deliver the Government's social programme, while distancing Ministers from any controversy over the issues concerned. How familiar we are with this Secretary of State seeking to distance himself from any controversy emanating from his Department! The Bill will hamper competition, add to costs and, most deplorably of all, damage, not protect, the interests of consumers.
      9.18 pm
      Mr. Stunell: First, I wish to thank the ministerial team for the work that they have put into the Bill. It has had the most remarkably chequered history and I am well aware that—as well as causing us stress—it has caused the ministerial team some stress. Occasionally, that has been visible, despite their smiling attempts to deny it. When I saw the list of amendments for Report, I derived some wry amusement from realising that, despite the 50-odd clauses we had successfully deleted in Committee, a few had escaped Ministers' eagle eyes and had to be deleted today. I recognise what a difficult and hard job they have had.
      The overall shape of the Bill is now right and it should proceed, but it still has significant faults. We have tried to demonstrate those faults, in Committee and on Report, and to indicate how they might have been rectified. I hope that there will be opportunities to do that in the other place.
      I would highlight the fact that, despite the many good intentions and smooth words and the emollient approach of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in Committee, there are no firm targets for delivery on

      1071
      renewables. That is a worry, and it raises fears in the industry that one of the fundamental tasks of the Department of Trade and Industry will not be achieved. That task is to make sure that the potential for employment, export and growth in the renewables sector is fully developed.
      We believe that an opportunity that could have allowed the renewables sector to blossom and grow, as has happened in some neighbouring countries has been missed. As a result, the United Kingdom will miss out on some growth and export opportunities, as well as on the opportunity to reach the Kyoto targets that the Government have pledged to achieve.
      We are worried about some of the matters relating to the consumer council in its new combined form. The council is the way to go, but we think that it may turn out to be too centralised and bureaucratic, and we are worried about the availability of information to it. It would be only too easy for the regulator and the industry to shut up shop and keep information away from the council.
      Ministers have given reassurances on the record that I hope can be prayed in aid when information is denied. However, we would have preferred the requirements to protect the consumer and to make information available to be specified on the face of the Bill.
      Our underlying belief is that, although it is right and proper for the Bill to do all that it can to open up competition in the gas and electricity industries, at every level from generator to supplier, making the market the determining force for the introduction of renewables and the achievement of environmental targets will not work. We also doubt that the market will be the right force to achieve the Government's social objectives. The Bill has some weak links that the Government will have to address, either in Parliament or in some other way, in the very near future.
      The Bill has some very positive features, however. We have welcomed the new electricity trading arrangements and the increased competition that will be introduced to the gas and electricity markets. We also welcome the integrated regulatory framework that will be provided in the future. In the past, there has been inconsistency between regulators and, on some occasions, the regulatory framework has fostered a jobsworth attitude. I hope that the Bill will put an end to that.
      We are happy with the environmental obligations in the Bill. They are a positive step forward and we are pleased to support them.
      Overall, the Bill takes a number of significant steps forward, but it falters in some key areas. We regret that, and hope that opportunities for further improvements will be taken.
      We shall support the Bill tonight.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

  Fertility Treatment
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Paul Marsden: I am pleased to present a petition signed by 1,176 local people on the sensitive and sometimes heartbreaking issue of gaining equal access to fertility treatment.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons, this petition of Shropshire and mid-Wales residents declares
  That with one in six couples seeking help for infertility at some time, there is an overwhelming need for better funding for this treatment on the NHS, the current provision of which is patchwork across Britain and very minimal in Shropshire and mid-Wales.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate resources are available for infertility treatment and that access to this treatment should be on a fair and equitable basis across the country.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Macular Eye Disease
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
9.24 pm
Mr. David Crausby: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of macular eye disease and so, I hope, to increase awareness of a debilitating disease that is the most common form of registrable visual impairment among the elderly in the western world. Age-related macular degeneration affects 40 per cent. of people aged over 75, despite which it is relatively unheard of.
I first became aware of the problems associated with the disease when I was invited to attend a newly formed macular eye disease group in my constituency. Bolton macular disease group is a self-help organisation comprising people with a common aim of providing support for each other and discussing problems and exchanging ideas on how to cope with their difficulties. The group was formed with the help of the Bolton social services department's visual impairment team, which had done good work for those who suffer from impaired vision.
It is all too fashionable these days to criticise social services departments, and it is a pleasure to highlight the essential work that they do and to congratulate them on it. I pay tribute to the macular group in Bolton and similar groups around the country. They do a tremendous voluntary job in helping sufferers and their partners with advice and support. Most importantly, they reassure people who have the disease that they are not alone. The Bolton group is part of the national Macular Disease Society, which has many branches across the country.
To assist those who are unaware of the problems of macular degeneration, I shall briefly describe the disease. The human eye operates like a camera, the main difference being that a camera has a layer of film in the back while the eye has a layer of tissue—the retina. The image focused on the retina is converted to a digital image that is transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain, where it is perceived as sharply focused vision. The macula is found at the centre of the retina, where incoming rays of light are focused. The macula is responsible for what we see immediately in front of us—the vision that we need for detailed reading or writing. It controls our ability to appreciate colour.
The macula receives most of its nourishment from blood vessels in a deeper layer, which is separated from the macula by a membrane. If the membrane is damaged, the macula does not function properly. If the membrane breaks, new and abnormal blood vessels form to try to repair the damage, but they may bleed and displace the macula. The delicate cells of the macula can sometimes become damaged and stop working. No one seems to know why, but it tends to happen as we get older, although children and young people may also suffer from inherited macular degeneration: indeed, sometimes, several members of a family will suffer.
Macular degeneration impairs your ability to look straight ahead, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a blind spot in the centre of your vision. It is always there; it never goes away. It is as if someone were holding a coin six
1074
inches in front of your face. You cannot see around the spot, and it will not move away from the centre of vision, regardless of where you look.
Because macular degeneration is normally age-related, it usually involves both eyes, although not necessarily at the same time. For many people, the visual cells simply cease to function, just as the colours fade in an old photograph: that is known as dry degeneration. Fortunately, it is not a painful disease and it never leads to complete blindness, even though it is the most common cause of poor sight in people aged over-60. It never leads to complete loss of sight because only the central vision is affected, so those with macular degeneration will have enough side vision to get about and to maintain their independence. Dry degeneration accounts for the majority of cases; in effect, it is untreatable.
A significant minority of cases are of wet macular degeneration, which is much more severe. However, it is treatable if diagnosed early enough. AMD Alliance International estimates that more than 500,000 people in the UK suffer from various forms of the disease. Between 10 and 15 per cent. of those patients have wet AMD, but they can be treated if the disease is caught early enough.
Every year, throughout the world, 500,000 new patients develop wet AMD; between 40 and 60 per cent. of sufferers will develop the lesions that are the predominant sign of the disease. Patients with that condition lose their ability to read, drive and recognise faces in as little as two months or as long as two years.
Because wet AMD can cause profound and rapid loss of vision, it has been the subject of many years of research by scientists and clinicians throughout the world, and various new treatments have been promoted. New developments are upon us. Only last week, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved an exciting new treatment, and the European Union recommended approval of a treatment involving a combination of laser beams and the drug Visudyne.
Two centres in the UK—Liverpool and Aberdeen—have been taking part in international studies to evaluate photodynamic therapy, which is a new treatment for wet AMD. Last month, the brief results of the second year of the study were released. They demonstrated that the beneficial effects of photodynamic therapy had continued into the second year.
The therapy works by preventing the leaking blood vessels from causing further damage. The procedure takes place in an out-patient clinic and takes about 30 minutes. It starts with a 10-minute intravenous infusion of Visudyne—a light-sensitive dye that sticks to the inner lining of the new vessels. Five minutes after the infusion, the dye is activated by a light shone on to the surface of the eye. The activated dye then damages the vessels, causing them to close.
I should warn hon. Members that photodynamic therapy is beneficial only for certain categories of the disease and that treatment needs to be commenced within six months of the onset of visual deterioration. That is why it is so important to highlight the disease and to encourage awareness and early diagnosis. Of course, Visudyne offers a solution for only a small minority of those with AMD; a much larger majority of sufferers will continue to depend on visual aids, equipment and conventional treatment.

1075
The normal first port of call for those who are experiencing problems with their vision is their optician. The introduction of free eye tests for the elderly from the beginning of this month is of immense importance in the early diagnosis of AMD. Regrettably, far too many elderly people simply could not afford to attend their optician regularly and they could have missed out on early treatment and support.
I am optimistic that regular eye testing will be most helpful in ensuring that people aged over 60 who are at risk of AMD will be able to receive regular eye examinations. The Royal National Institute for the Blind recommends that elderly people should have an eye test every two years. More frequent examinations will obviously result in patients with signs of eye disease being referred for the specialist treatment that they require.
I am concerned, however, that the standard of service from opticians is irregular. I am advised that they do not always effectively test for the disease. A standard optical test involves external examination and internal examination of the eye to detect signs of injury, abnormality or disease, and examination of the retina. The use of an ophthalmoscope would be expected to uncover macular degeneration when it is well established. There is, however, a test known as the Amsler grid, which is designed to map the field of vision and uncover any problems, but there is no requirement for an optician to use this test routinely. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Minister were to investigate the situation.
The second port of call for those experiencing a visual difficulty is usually their general practitioner. They, like opticians, have to decide whether a referral to a consultant is appropriate. This can cause problems with people missing out if the GP is insufficiently trained in recognising when it is necessary to refer a patient to an eye consultant.
It is only when patients see an eye consultant that treatment becomes available, and it is by this time often too late effectively to treat the disease. There is still much that can be done, however, even when vision has deteriorated either through wet or dry degeneration. For example, the patient may be registered as blind or partially sighted, and only the consultant has the authority to make the registration decision. Registration automatically leads to referral to the local social services department, which will instigate action from its visual impairment team or its local equivalent.
If the consultant feels that the patient would benefit from the use of magnifiers or aids of any sort, a referral would be made to the low-vision aid clinic, which is usually part of the same hospital. That clinic will recognise that one of the main difficulties for a patient with AMD will be reading and examining small detail. The clinics are able to measure close as well as distance vision, and can prescribe magnifiers to assist with close work. The optometrist will also advise on the importance of correct lighting levels to enhance the patient's remaining vision.
In addition, virtually all social services departments will have a provision for visually impaired people. Their role is to assist these people in retaining their independence and quality of life. Social services will conduct an initial assessment of the individual's needs.
1076
These days there are numerous aids and pieces of equipment for reading, writing, mobility and general daily life. They include closed circuit television, talking books, magazines and newspapers, big-button telephones, talking watches and clocks, tactile oven controls and even talking microwaves. There are clubs and societies such as the Macular Disease Society, which do such good work in Bolton and which first made me aware of this disabling disease.
My aim in initiating this debate on macular eye disease was to raise awareness of a disability that is so little known and yet affects so many people. I am eager to enlist the Government's support in highlighting and improving the services that are available to sufferers.
As I have said, there are some exciting treatments on the horizon, but the harsh reality is that for the vast majority it is too late to cure the disease. It is not too late, however, to provide modern visual aids. With such rapid strides being made in new technology, there will no doubt be many more exciting prospects available on the horizon.
9.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on securing the time for this debate. I hardly need say that sight, and the risk of losing it, is an important subject. Age-related macular degeneration—or AMD—affects about 500,000 people in the United Kingdom, mainly, but not exclusively, the elderly.
Before I enlarge a little on what my hon. Friend has told us about the origins and effects of AMD, I join him in paying tribute to the voluntary organisation that he mentioned in his constituency. The national health service owes much to support given by interest groups that are often formed by the sufferers of particular diseases. Therefore, I extend my appreciation to the work of the Bolton Macular Disease Society.
I shall say a little about the Government's position on possible advances in the treatment of AMD. We have already demonstrated the priority that the Government attach to the eye care of the elderly by the reintroduction of free sight tests for everyone aged 60 or over, but we need to make sure that the national health service stays sensitive to new advances in the treatment of eye disease and can quickly identify the people who might benefit from them.
AMD is the most common cause of sight loss in people over 60. Although it is severely disabling—my hon. Friend described the condition graphically—it seldom leads to complete sight loss because only the central vision is affected. That means that most people with macular degeneration should have enough side vision to maintain a degree of mobility and independence.
I know that some concerns have been expressed that AMD is becoming more common among younger or middle-aged people. In fact, we have always known that people in their 40s contract this condition—congenital sight defects, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and AMD each account for about 10 per cent. of people registered blind under the age of 64. However, we are not aware of those figures changing significantly. AMD in particular, and loss of sight more generally, remain in most cases diseases of old age. Out of 300,000 people registered blind or partially sighted, two thirds are over the age of 75.

1077
As macular degeneration is an age-related process, it often involves both eyes, although they may not be affected at the same time. Some people find that their visual cells simply stop working, with an effect—as my hon. Friend described it—a bit like the colours fading in an old photograph. That is known as "dry" degeneration. The dry type is the more common form—we estimate that it affects almost 90 per cent. of those with AMD. The onset of this condition tends to be slow and both eyes are usually affected symmetrically.
Vision tends to deteriorate gradually and the loss is not always severe. Unfortunately, there is not yet a proven treatment for the condition, but the worst effects can be alleviated with low vision aids such as magnifiers, telescopes and, increasingly, closed circuit television cameras that project an enlarged image on a display in front of the patient's eyes. Better lighting and large-print books can also be helpful.
The other type of macular degeneration is known as wet degeneration. It is less common—we estimate that it affects about 10 per cent. of patients with AMD—but it tends to have a more severe and rapid effect on the central area of vision. Blood vessels from one layer at the back of the eye grow in an abnormal fashion into the macular area. These blood vessels may leak or bleed causing a rapid and significant reduction in central vision. That tends to affect one eye at a time, but there is a risk of the same thing occurring in the other eye over the following months.
About 10 per cent. of people with wet AMD—in other words only a very small proportion of all AMD sufferers—might be suitable candidates for laser treatment. It is normally successful only if the condition is picked up early, and even then not all patients are suitable. Unfortunately, with laser treatment there is also the risk that lesions may continue to progress and that vision may become even worse after the treatment.
I am happy to say that, as my hon. Friend suggested, research is under way into a process that offers exciting prospects of increasing the accuracy and effectiveness of laser treatment. The treatment is known as photodynamic therapy and involves the use of a photosensitive dye, which, when activated in the back of the eye by a light source, closes abnormal retina blood vessels. The underlying abnormal blood vessels should then be easily identified and selectively destroyed without damaging the overlying sensory retina.
That research project, which is being conducted at the St. Paul's eye unit in Liverpool, is due to take two years and is now in its second year. As my hon. Friend said, the results so far are promising, but the key test will be whether the treatment offers real and, above all, lasting improvements to the patient's sight.
If, as we all hope, the outcome of the research is positive, we will, as my hon. Friend has emphasised, need to consider carefully whether that means that laser treatment could be provided more widely than it is now. How that consideration should best be done depends in part on the exact outcome of the research. The Government have established a new process for evaluating developments in medical science, and one option would be to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to evaluate the new treatment. Whatever the process for evaluating the research, I can assure my hon.
1078
Friend that it will be as quick and as thorough as it needs to be for the welfare of AMD patients and the NHS as a whole.
I would not want to leave my hon. Friend or the House with the impression that the photodynamic project is the only research into AMD. There are no fewer than 19 projects looking at AMD and another 47 which have considered promising options such as sub-macular surgery have recently been completed. I sincerely hope that some of that research leads to more effective treatments for what is a very distressing condition.
If the treatment were endorsed, the next step would be to ensure that the people who might benefit from it were identified and referred as promptly as possible. The measures that we took last year to extend the eligibility for free NHS sight tests to people aged over 60 will be an excellent start.
Ophthalmic opticians, whom I know prefer to be known as optometrists, have practices on almost every high street. When testing someone's sight they are also required to conduct an examination of the health of the eyes. Opticians can already identify the signs of AMD and, with additional advice and training, could single out the cases of wet AMD that might be susceptible to the new treatment. I also envisage a system of local protocols with hospital ophthalmology departments to make sure that patients are referred promptly for treatment.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Amsler grid, which may be used in some cases to highlight visual distortions that may be symptomatic of AMD. That test is not a substitute for regular eye tests, which, if carried out at least every two years, should ensure that any signs or symptoms may be picked up in the early stages when treatment can be effective in preventing sight loss.
People under 60 are also eligible for NHS sight tests if they are on low incomes or predisposed to eye disease. Even for those on higher incomes the cost of a private sight test is seldom more than £18. In the past, we have collaborated with the Royal National Institute for the Blind on publicity campaigns encouraging people to have their sight tested regularly, and if it would help we would not hesitate to mount another effective campaign highlighting the risks to sight from AMD and the benefits of early diagnosis and prompt treatment.
We have also recently announced new measures to tackle the wide variations in service experienced by patients with cataracts. We have asked local services to put forward proposals for a slice of the £20 million that has been allocated for the next two years, which will help to modernise eye surgery. We believe that, with the elderly population increasing, improving the standard of eye care will represent a step towards improving the quality of their lives.
I hope that I have allayed my hon. Friend's fears that we may not be sufficiently responsive to advances in the treatment of this sight-threatening disease. Although we all hope very much that the research will fulfil its potential, I say as a note of caution that we cannot prejudge its outcome. If it is positively evaluated, we have the facilities to ensure that those people who might benefit are promptly identified and treated.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Ethiopia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: It is difficult to believe that this debate is necessary, but I thank Madam Speaker for granting it. I have made six unsuccessful attempts to ask a private notice question during the past two and a half weeks. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the Conservative spokesman, has also requested a PNQ. That is unusually coy behaviour on the part of the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you will be aware, as the hon. Lady should be, that the granting of private notice questions is nothing to do with the Government. They are entirely in the gift of Madam Speaker. Normally, such matters are not referred to, but had that request been granted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would have been only too pleased to answer a PNQ on the subject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has given as good a ruling on that matter as I could have done. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) would be well advised to note the criteria that govern private notice questions.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise the Committee that nothing could have prevented the Government from volunteering a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is verging on matters of debate. We might be advised to deal with the substance of the matter before us. I call the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
Dr. Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stand corrected. As a relatively new Member, I am not aware of the procedural niceties of the House.
I am nevertheless delighted that the debate has been granted, although I still find it difficult to believe that it is necessary. We all remember the terrible famine in Ethiopia in 1984. I remember it particularly well because, thanks to Bob Geldof—now Sir Bob—my eldest son, who was a young teenager at the time, was terribly interested in development issues. My son described himself as a rockabilly, but I never found out what it meant. However, the famine in Ethiopia geared up a whole generation of young people to become interested in development issues. That interest has remained with them.
188WH
I am sure that at that time, the House agonised and debated, held inquiries and resolved that such a famine should not happen again. Some hon. Members will be able to remind us about that. Since then, many other disasters have occurred, including the famine in the Sudan in 1989. In 1998, I was a member of the Select Committee on International Development, when it debated those problems. I remember, during that terrible time in southern Sudan, that systems were set up and we all thought that it could not happen again in that part of Africa.
Operation Lifeline Sudan was set up after the famine in southern Sudan in 1989. We had been warned of food shortages and famine in October 1997, but it was not until February or March 1998 that the usual images of starving children appeared on our television screens—the harrowing sight of families with little children literally starving to death before our eyes. That is when people responded. That is when the non-governmental organisations responded and when the Government kicked into activity.
It feels horribly as if the same thing is happening again. By the spring of 1998, many thousands of Sudanese people had died. Ethiopia is not unlike the Sudan; there is conflict, drought, poverty and a lack of long-term development, which is the ideal mix that leads to famine. There has been drought in Ethiopia for the past four years. The Ethiopian Government have been issuing warnings about food security during that time and they are now appealing for 1.2 million tonnes of food aid. If that aid does not arrive, 8 million lives will be at risk in Ethiopia alone, and it is estimated that 16 million lives could be at risk in the Horn of Africa as a whole.
Mr. Foulkes: To coincide with the hon. Lady's success in this debate, the Department for International Development has published an information bulletin on Ethiopia. It is available on the internet and hard copies are available now—I have already given the hon. Lady one.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I will not suggest that we should all go home and read the document instead of staying here. The title of the debate was deliberately broadened in an attempt to enable us to consider some of the issues behind the knee-jerk reaction that has to take place when a famine occurs. The matter is much more complicated than that reaction would imply.
Once again, starving children are appearing on our television screens, although they have been wiped off them during the past couple of days because of the troubles in Zimbabwe. I am sure that we will see them again during the Easter weekend. Apparently, the situation is not yet a famine. It is not a famine because the United Nations assessors have not reported back, as the war with Eritrea is said to be using up Ethiopia's resources and not enough people are dying each day. Apparently, a particular number of people must die every day for a famine to occur. In spite of what we have

189WH
seen, not enough people are doing so, which is very inconvenient. It is tempting to remind the House of these words:
Any man's death diminishes me…And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls.
Surely famine does not have to be a matter of numbers.
I am pleased to inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Madam Speaker has recognised the great need that exists. Last night, in Speaker's House, under the auspices of a non-governmental organisation called Farm Africa, Madam Speaker launched a campaign called "Send a Tonne to Africa", meaning a tonne of grain or cereal. People are asked to contribute large or small sums that will be used to purchase grain locally from African farmers. The amount can be a kilo or a tonne, or whatever can be afforded. Madam Speaker has pump primed the appeal by donating £3,000, and last night she raised £10,000 in an hour, which was not bad going. We should all thank her and congratulate her on the effort that she is making to highlight the problems in Ethiopia.
What is going wrong with the world's response? As I said, Ethiopia needs 1.2 million tonnes of food. So far, or at least until 10 April—I have not yet read the Department for International Development briefing—350,000 tonnes have been pledged. After the previous famine in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Government established a disaster prevention and preparedness commission to provide early warnings and an emergency food security reserve to provide relief food. A pharaoh's granary exists in Ethiopia to provide for the lean years by storing up food from the fat years. What has happened to it? Sadly, it has been depleted by loans to donors, which include the United States, the European Union, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and the World Food Programme, which have plundered the store of food that was set aside for Ethiopia. The World Food Programme is on that list, but also runs Operation Lifeline Sudan in northern Kenya to provide food aid to southern Sudan.
What sort of madness is that? It is not as if the world is short of food. Why were not the resources replenished by the international community or, on our own doorstep, by the European Union? That question is especially important in the light of the warnings of food shortages that were given last year. How much has the United Kingdom contributed to the European Union food aid fund? Why have we not pressed Brussels to act sooner? Why have we failed to respond adequately to the United Nation's appeal in January for $10 million for health care and water supplies? Only $1 million has been received so far. What is happening about the rapid response force to disasters called for by Sir Bob Geldof a couple of days ago? The Liberal Democrats discussed such a force extensively during the Mozambique disaster. The idea is not new but neither the European Community Humanitarian Office nor the United Nations seem able to provide the world with that much-needed facility.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am very much enjoying the hon. Lady's speech. She touches on an important matter—the performance of the
190WH
multilateral agencies in such situations. Does she agree that the response is disappointing more often than not? I was wondering this morning whether I could think of a situation in which the multilateral agencies had responded well in such a crisis. Can she think of an example? What would she suggest we do to improve the performance of the UN and the EU?
Dr. Tonge: That intervention was useful. I am a great European and a great fan of the United Nations, but I am the first person to admit that they are not getting matters right. We must get them right. A country on its own cannot deliver the response needed in a disaster. Consider the problem of heavy-lift equipment in the Mozambique disaster. Provision of such equipment is not for one country alone. Not all countries can have their own heavy-lift equipment to use once in a million years. We need to work together as a group of countries and we must put much more effort into doing that. I am not apologising in any sense for the European Union or the United Nations. I am simply saying that there must be a way. The world needs us to find a way.
No wonder I have a sense of deja vu. The same confusion, lack of response and failure to heed early warnings before the media and the newsmen arrive happened two years ago and it will all happen in two years' time if we are not careful.
Before I leave the subject of immediate humanitarian aid, it must be noted that the war with Eritrea has made the use of ports in that country impossible. That is undoubtedly a factor. Can Djibouti cope with the demand for ships bringing in grain and other supplies? There are good reports, including some from the Ethiopian Government and the non-governmental organisations, that much is being done in that port to make access easier and to get supplies in.
I have studied the atlas hard to try to work out whether it would be possible to use Lokichokio in northern Kenya. The question interests me. I have seen the fleet of Hercules aircraft and the tonnes and tonnes of food aid stored there. Yes, the food is needed for southern Sudan, but the Hercules aircraft are a possible means of transport. I wonder whether it would be possible to use that facility.
In responding to the crisis in the Sudan two years' ago, the Secretary of State for International Development said:
Spend less on development, fail in development, more and more poverty, more and more crisis, more and more humanitarian disaster, more and more appeals, more and more failure, more and more suffering, more and more poverty. No addressing the causes or underlying concerns.
As the statement makes clear, without proper long-term development, famines and catastrophes will continue.
Ethiopia has doubled its population in the past 15 years. There is over-crowding, poor farming practice, soil deterioration and deforestation. All those factors contribute to conflict and famine. Many NGOs, including Christian Aid, have been working in the region to develop sustainable practices, such as the construction of earth dams to collect water and the better roads that are essential if Ethiopia is to haul itself out of poverty. The Government of Ethiopia has conducted a massive road-building programme and are making huge efforts to improve agriculture. Why, then,

191WH
is the United Kingdom cutting long-term development aid to Ethiopia from, as I understand it, £39 million to £19 million in the next three years? In a country where 45 per cent. of the population live on less than a dollar a day, the Ethiopian Government spend twice as much on debt servicing as they do on primary education. All the factors are present. Why are we cutting aid?
I understand, and have been told many times by the Secretary of State, that long-term development aid is not provided to countries in conflict—or that there is a reluctance to do so. The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea costs Ethiopia £1 million a day. That is a terrible waste. However, if we cut development aid because it may be misappropriated by warring factions, as it is alleged is happening in southern Sudan, how can we break the cycle of poverty, conflict and famine that repeats over and over again? I am not suggesting that this is an easy problem to deal with, and I am not apportioning blame; I am just opening the matter for debate.
Can we not provide the development aid through the NGOs that are brave enough to work in dangerous zones? Indeed, the United Kingdom Government do that in some places. Despite what is happening in Zimbabwe, there has been an increase in development aid via the NGOs, for which I applaud them. That aid is provided despite Zimbabwe's involvement in the war in the Congo, also. Development aid to Sierra Leone has also increased, but the situation there is hardly stable or safe. However, that is not to happen for southern Sudan, where the civil war has been running for 30 years, or for Ethiopia. Why?
Southern Sudan and Ethiopia are to receive no, or little, development aid. Apparently, the carrot and stick are to be offered to them. Aid will come only when the fighting stops. The civil war in southern Sudan has been going on for 30 years. The one plea that I received from mothers during my visit was for teachers to educate their children. Not only did their children have nothing to do, but the mothers argued that, however the war continued and whatever raids were made on their villages, education could not be taken from their children. Once it was in their brains, it was there. Generations are missing out.
Are the children of Ethiopia to suffer the same fate? I do not defend the war in either country. In fact, I was appalled by President Zenawi's remarks last week that he would not attempt to broker a peace with Eritrea. He said:
We do not believe that protecting one's sovereignty is a luxury for the rich alone.
Nevertheless, we must ensure that aid for education and basic health care is provided, even during conflict. It is the only way to break the cycle.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Surely the dilemma is how much the hon. Lady would expect food aid to perpetuate the war and the conditions that prevent children from benefiting from education, because they die from malnutrition.
Dr. Tonge: That crosses the two issues. I do not suggest that we should not give humanitarian aid—food and water. Those things must be got to the children, whether there is war or not. My argument is that
192WH
development aid—particularly education, because we all know how important primary education is to a country's development—should not be cut simply because of conflict. Not only is it crucial, but not much is needed. In the Sudan, little is required to educate children—a teacher, a shady tree and, with luck, slates and chalks or a few bits of paper and the odd book. They are not asking for much. Those things cannot be destroyed by war. If the teachers and children flee, education can carry on.
Many questions need to be answered about the reaction to the immediate crisis in Ethiopia and about our long-term policy on development aid to countries in conflict. I thank the Minister for listening. I hope that he will provide answers before the images of death and suffering return to our television screens.
9.50 am
Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing the debate. She was not alone in wanting to raise this subject. Many people have been involved in activities similar to those that have occupied her in previous weeks. The Department for International Development has been keen to explain its position on the response to the famine in Ethiopia.
In a debate on Ethiopia that I initiated in December 1989, I quoted the Foreign Affairs Committee report of 1988 on famine in the Horn of Africa. It said:
An impression may have been created in the donor countries that, since so many lessons have been learnt, the horrors of 1984–85 would not recur. This would be dangerously false optimism…
But droughts will occur again—the rains have failed or been inadequate in 3 of the last 4 years—and with a fast-growing population, poor farming techniques, widespread deforestation and land degradation, the consequent famines are likely to be increasingly severe…And by each successive drought the resilience of the people and of the land is diminished. It is a spiral which, if unbroken, may result in tragedy.—[Official Report, 13 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 1062.]
Who would have thought that in 2000 we would be debating the same problems? Weather is difficult to control in any country, however, and in the countries of Africa people are so dependent on it for their survival.
The Secretary of State for International Development said in a written answer that the UN estimates that more than 12 million people face serious food shortages in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Djibouti and Somalia are suffering to a varying extent. We know, however, that the people of Ethiopia are most at risk. Even in good rain years, 5 million to 6 million Ethiopians are partially dependent on food aid—about 8 million face famine in Ethiopia now. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, food aid is essential. We need to respond quickly to the plight of the Ethiopian Government.
Last night, I read a briefing paper by the Ethiopian Government, which most hon. Members will have received. It asks what the difference is between 1984 and now and explains:
Ethiopia has changed dramatically in the past eight years. Since the overthrow of the Derg regime in 1991, Ethiopia has been a democracy and the Government has been working continually to improve infrastructure, agricultural methods and training for farmers to alleviate the impact of rain failure and crop failure. Food security and self-sufficiency is the No. 1 priority of the Government. It should also be pointed out that Ethiopia has not been in the grip of drought and food shortages since 1984.

193WH
That certainly was not the case in 1989, when there was a similar problem. It goes on to say:
The improvements in agriculture and infrastructure since 1991 …meant that Ethiopia actually exported food to neighbouring countries in both 1996 and 1997. The problems since then have been unfavourable climactic conditions and the lack of adequate donor response,
to which the hon Lady has already referred. She also spoke about the extreme poverty in the country.
I visited Ethiopia just before the fall of Mengistu and saw the great efforts that were being made at the time by United Nations agencies. The United Nations Development Project was attempting to give information to farmers. I went out on field trips with people from that project and saw them instructing farmers on how best to use their poor soil. The farmers queued halfway up a mountain to receive that instruction. UNDP was bemoaning the fact that it did not have more resources at its disposal to provide more education programmes to farmers, who are keen to learn. There has also been an enormous population explosion, which was clear even in 1989. Again, the United Nations population programmes in Ethiopia were completely overloaded by demand, and long queues of people were waiting in the streets to obtain information from the UN clinics. Therefore, we must look again at the resources that the UN can deploy in countries such as Ethiopia.
Ethiopia has endured four successive seasons of drought. The rainy seasons—one in February and one in the summer—did not bring any rain, but they are vital because they contribute to 50 per cent. of crop production in some parts of the country. For the past three years, the rains that begin in February have been very short and this year they did not arrive at all. Ethiopia's farmers are probably more dependent on rain than farmers in any other African country. In its good briefing, Oxfam says,
Crop production has been decimated and 95 per cent. of the livestock have been lost in the Ogaden in the south.
We have seen the pictures on television of carcases lying all over the desert. The herdsmen, who are dependent on their livestock for milk and income, have been killing them as a last resort to survive. The population of Ethiopia has doubled since 1985, so land is being divided into smaller plots that allow farmers to produce a family's grain needs for three to four months of the year on average. The soil is being overused and exhausted as a consequence. Soil erosion is so bad that billions of tonnes of soil are washed away each year. Farmers are not allowed to own their land, which is a disincentive to investment in it. Deforestation in Ethiopia has made the problem of soil erosion worse. Only 3 per cent. of the land in Ethiopia is now covered by trees, which is extraordinary.
International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies mean that Ethiopia spends more on servicing debt than on health and education. I believe that Ethiopia has outstanding Export Credits Guarantee Department loans to the UK to the sum of £15 million. Its total external debt is $10.4 billion, which is 169 per cent. of its annual gross national product and 10 times the value of its exports. Clearly, that is ridiculous.
194WH
The new Ethiopian Government have attempted to put in place projects to mitigate the effects of drought, such as building earth dams to catch the limited rainwater. They have introduced measures to reduce poverty, such as establishing credit unions and initiating job creation schemes in urban areas. They have made improvements in infrastructure—for instance through road-building programmes—to speed up food delivery in times of famine. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, all those projects have been undermined by the cutting back of western aid in response to the war with Eritrea.
In the mid-1990s the IMF insisted on cuts in social spending to ensure budget surpluses. Ethiopia is not in the heavily indebted poor countries scheme and still pays a massive amount in debt service payments: last year, the figure was £60 million. Therefore, while ordinary people in the west generously donate money with one hand, western banks and Governments take it back with the other in interest payments.
The drought and famine have been compounded by the war with Eritrea, even though little fighting is going on at present. The Ethiopian Government should acknowledge that, because they maintain an enormous standing army of 400,000 men along the border with Eritrea, which costs the country £631,000 a day to maintain. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told me in an answer on 5 April that international efforts were in hand to bring the war with Eritrea to a conclusion. I do not know what those efforts are and would like to hear more about them. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to them in his reply.
The International Development Committee has looked many times at the impact of conflict, and at its draining effect on the economy and well-being of the countries where conflict is a perpetual fact of life. At the same time as we are trying to relieve the famine, international efforts should be made to bring that conflict to an end.
There are worrying reports that, despite the famine, Ethiopia is preparing to launch a new offensive against Eritrea. On 13 April, the Ethiopian Prime Minister refused to rule out launching another offensive. That again underlines the need for rapid international attempts to end the conflict.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that the Ethiopian Government had reserves of food, but they have dropped to 30,000 tonnes, which is only enough for about two weeks' emergency distribution. Western Governments gave the Ethiopians written assurances that supplies that were borrowed would be replenished as soon as possible, but the donors have failed to replenish. The European Union alone has failed to replenish 78,000 tonnes from the stores.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for emphasising that point. Like me, does she not feel outraged that, in spite of the experience of the past 10 to 15 years and after all the discussion, debate and inquiries, the world could have allowed those food stores to be depleted to such an extent?
Ann Clwyd: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. If those food stores were borrowed and promises were made on paper to replenish them, it is a disgrace that they have not been replenished.
Appeals were made for additional food aid as long ago as November 1999, but, as of 1 April, no food supplies had arrived in Ethiopia, and the Ethiopian Foreign Minister said that the world seems to react only when it sees "skeletons on screens". The United Nations launched an appeal for £190 million on 28 January 2000. Oxfam has accused the international community of dragging its feet by not sending aid quickly enough and sending only half the amount that it promised in 1999. Oxfam has provided some interesting figures, which are worth examining, but I shall not read them out now.
The Secretary of State for International Development stated on 12 April that since January, the United Kingdom has committed ££4.5 million in aid, including 16,500 tonnes of food. The Department has said that it is ready to do more as needs emerge, and, compared with many other countries, the United Kingdom's record has been extremely good and cannot be faulted.
The UN special envoy recently visited Ethiopia and made strong speeches, stating that it is now time for the international community to act. She met the Ethiopian Prime Minister and was told that the west was using the war with Eritrea as an excuse for its slow reaction to the famine. That may be his opinion, but the response has been good since the needs became fully known. Television has an important role because it puts pressure on Governments that need to be pressurised, and it leads to a good response from the public.
I shall spell out what the United Kingdom should do. If it is not doing so already, it must work with its EU partners and the international community to ensure that all food and non-food aid requested by Ethiopia and the aid agencies arrives as quickly as possible. It must provide cash so that food can be bought locally. Most urgently, it must bring the Eritreans, southern separatist groups and Ethiopians together to try to secure an agreement to end the conflict, at least in the short term, and open access to other ports in Eritrea to speed up aid delivery.
In the long term, the United Kingdom must try to bring that damaging war to an end. It must then discuss with the Ethiopians and aid agencies the problems of infrastructure and logistics to find the best and quickest means of overcoming them. It must try to deal with the underlying causes of recurring famine and break the cycle of crisis that arose in 1984, 1989 and now in 2000.
The IMF, the World Bank and creditor Governments should re-examine Ethiopia's and Eritrea's foreign debt and suspend, reschedule or cancel it and offer quicker and deeper debt relief, perhaps as a carrot for their efforts to end the war. The multilateral development banks and donor Governments should offer substantial and additional long-term assistance to Ethiopia and Eritrea. Finally, the Ethiopian Government, through the World Bank, the UN, and aid agencies, should be encouraged to develop an effective strategy to tackle land ownership and soil erosion. In the long term, that will enable Ethiopian families to feed themselves and,
196WH
hopefully, bring the cycle of crisis to an end so that, after 2000, we no longer witness pitifully thin, exhausted Ethiopians dying on our television screens.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It may be of assistance if I remind hon. Members of the convention during these 90-minute debates to give the Floor to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman 30 minutes before the close of the debate. Only two Front-Bench speakers remain, so I shall call the Opposition spokesman at 10.40, leaving 40 minutes in which to fit four other hon. members. I therefore appeal to those hon. Members to be as concise as possible, so that we can accommodate everyone.
10.10 am
Mr. Tony Baldry: Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must also remind hon. Members that the House has decided, in its wisdom, that Westminster Hall is not a Committee. It is the House and the person in the Chair must, therefore, be addressed accordingly.
Mr. Baldry: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is still a novel forum for some of us, and I must say that it is not a particularly pleasant forum. I like to be able to see the Minister's eyes when I address the Chamber.
I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has said, because she put it very well. I shall make several further points. My interest in Ethiopia started when I went there with the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in 1984 under the auspices of Save the Children and Oxfam. I was also chairman of the Anglo-Ethiopian Society for some time.
I must first express some sympathy for the Minister. I once held the post that he now holds and I know that there is a temptation in the House to criticise the Government whenever there is a disaster. Hon. Members must recognise that, for better or for ill, the Department extracts a sum from the Treasury in these circumstances; one can argue that it is not sufficiently large, but it is a sum. Under law, the Department must also meet its obligations to the dependent territories and to the Commonwealth. Then, we all ask the Department to enter into long-term development programmes. By definition, those require long-term funding.
Another problem that is sometimes forgotten is that, before the Department spends even a penny on bilateral aid, a substantial chunk of its budget is extracted to pay our contributions to the European Union. In this crisis, 17 per cent. of all EU aid comes from the United Kingdom. We do not get credit for that and we do not give ourselves credit for it. The EU will have given about 432,000 tonnes of aid to Ethiopia, a fifth of which will effectively have come from the United Kingdom.
We should not be so speedy to criticise the Department for International Development. Given the

197WH
competing claims on its budget, Ministers have been trying hard to give continuing support to Ethiopia—a food security adviser is there now.
I also endorse the Government's decision not to give further long-term development aid to Ethiopia while the war against Eritrea is raging. We have few enough carrots and sticks in these circumstances. It is sad that the international community has not yet succeeded in making greater progress. The United Nations has not yet managed to establish a line of control.
As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, it is extraordinarily sad that a country as poor as Ethiopia is committing so many of its young, able-bodied men to a conflict a long way from home and spending so much money on it. The international community and the United Nations must give a higher priority to resolving that conflict. We have become very bad at international conflict resolution. We have almost accepted the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia as a fact of life.
The Department has the capacity to do much more about logistics—a point made recently in the other place by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who probably knows more about these aspects of Africa than anyone. The Ethiopian Government's briefing pointed out that pledges are not enough; it is delivery of aid that is needed. During the 1984 famine, the Royal Air Force and others put enormous effort into distributing food aid. In a crisis, one needs disciplined lines of command and controls. The Royal Logistics Corps is a brilliant organisation, which did fantastic work in Rwanda. If the Minister is pressured by the House to do more, he should send members of the Royal Logistics Corps and the Royal Air Force to help distribute food aid in Ethiopia, rather than simply persuading the Treasury to get out its cheque book. That would be a far greater contribution. It is also a visible contribution that would earn respect from the international community and enable us to lever in influence.
I endorse the Government's refusal to give long-term development aid to Ethiopia while the war against Eritrea rages. My right hon. and hon. Friends will probably agree that, while the terrible internal conflict in Zimbabwe continues, the Government must think in terms of sticks and carrots and it would be right to suspend development aid to Zimbabwe until the horrors cease. If one is pursuing a particular policy in one part of the world, it should be pursued consistently.
Considerable progress has been made in Ethiopia since 1984, and the situation has certainly changed since then. The international community appears to have a far better grasp on events, but we are clearly moving towards a crisis. Doubtless the Minister will assure us that, proportionate to the crisis, Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they can. Many people will give him the benefit of the doubt, recognise the limitations within which he works, and hope that he can persuade the House that all necessary steps are being taken. However, if the Government are seen to be responding disproportionately, they will be condemned by the whole country. As has been said, we should learn from previous lessons. We have considerable experience in contributing to food aid distribution in Ethiopia. I hope that, in those and other areas, we can be seen to be doing everything humanly possible.
10.17 am
Mr. Tony Worthington: Obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome this debate. Given the brief time available, I shall make only one point. In respect of the war, we must not let Ethiopia off the hook. We all carry the heavy burden of war throughout the world. Fifteen of the top 20 recipients of European aid are involved in wars and conflict.
I want to discuss the speed with which the European Union reacts to such crises through its European Community Humanitarian Office. In pursuing its stated task of ensuring that goods and services reach crisis zones quickly, ECHO repeatedly fails. That is a recurring problem. Wherever one goes, one sees evidence of ECHO's failure. We were told that European aid had been provided to ease the famines in Somalia, but we saw no evidence of that on the ground. Eventually, we discovered that the aid was stuck in warehouses in Mombasa, Kenya. It took many months to reach Somalia.
On visiting Mozambique, we discovered a similar problem. The Commissioner arrived on 1 March, long after the crisis had passed, and announced aid of €25 million. That money was not planned for; one did not know where it was going, and it would be spent long after the event. Similarly, the International Development Committee criticised ECHO's actions in Kosovo.
In Ethiopia, it is the same old story. Announcements are occasionally made that the European Union is to give relief food, but where it goes or when it turns up is covered in mystery. Arabic News—which, of course, I read daily—reported on 8 November 1999 that Ethiopia was to get 46,000 tonnes in EU relief. Where did it go? I believe that 30,000 tonnes of it has just turned up in Djibouti. However, it is five months late and its arrival in Djibouti does not mean that it will be quickly distributed in Ethiopia.
On 10 April, the Relief Web and the BBC reported that the EU plans to ship 800,000 tonnes to the region this year. Commissioner Nielson said that if we can now plan in a reasonably professional way to ship 800,000 tonnes, that will be a good start. Does the EU have plans or merely vague aspirations? I suspect that it may be the latter.
Two days later, the position changed. On 12 April, Chris Patten, standing in for Mr. Nielson, told the European Parliament that the Commission had programmed the delivery of 283,000 tonnes. A close reading of his words reveals that that includes the 48,000 tonnes that should have arrived last year. He also said that the EU was about to decide on the delivery of an additional quantity of up to 260,000 tonnes.
The organisation does not know what it is doing. What happened to the 800,000 tonnes that was mentioned two days earlier? Oxfam has said that the EU failed to meet its commitment last year. It provided only half the food that it promised and is now more than a year behind on its pledges.
ECHO does not give the impression of being under control. If one really wants to lose faith in it, one should go to its website. Clicking on the icon for financial decisions and selecting Ethopia brings up the information, "Beneficiary: Ethopia: last statement 16 December 1998". There is no reference to money

199WH
going in or to the target population. The events section of ECHO's website gives information about events of September 1999. The speeches section offers the speeches of Emma Bonino, the former European Commissioner with responsibility for humanitarian affairs, who is no longer in post. If one looks up parliamentary questions asked about ECHO, it appears that the most recent question was asked on 6 April 1998. ECHO News, the organisation's publication for the public, seemingly last appeared in December 1997. ECHO does not know what it is doing; it is out of control. That is crucially important, because it claims to be the world's largest donor of humanitarian funds and is our major representative in that respect.
This problem concerns not only Ethiopia, but the entire Horn of Africa. Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Eritrea and Djibouti are under the threat of drought and the position may worsen if the next rains fail to arrive. This is not an emergency such as that in Mozambique—an act of God whereby the rains suddenly fell out of the sky—because it was predicted. In July 1999, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs referred to the worsening drought in Ethiopia. Reference has already been made to the running down of the food stores—for example, the European Union borrowed 80,000 tonnes that it did not return.
Will the Minister explain the basis on which we contribute to ECHO? I have looked at the statistics on the amounts that are contributed by the countries involved. Astonishingly, the Netherlands is the most generous contributor. The Scandinavians contribute a large amount, while our contribution is approximately average. The French, Portuguese and Greeks give virtually nothing. I am beginning to think that they are wise in that respect.
I believe in international organisations. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) asked for evidence of situations in which they work. They do work—the World Food Programme delivers brilliantly. On occasion, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has worked well, but it does not always do so. However, I have never heard people praise ECHO's contribution to any emergency. What is the Government's view?
10.24 am
Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on her contribution.
It is tragic to see on our television screens once again the terrible suffering of the people of Ethiopia. We had hoped that we had found the solutions that would prevent such tragedies from recurring. I am afraid that we all have to take some responsibility. There has been a tragic failure in development and a great failure on the part of the Ethiopian Government. I do not seek to exculpate or to excuse them from their responsibility for this tragedy. Their pursuit of war and their military spending, which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley discussed, have been significant factors. They could have reorganised agriculture and infrastructure in a manner that would prevent the occurrence of such tragedies.
200WH
We all know what needs to be done. Twenty years ago, 70 per cent. of Ethiopia was covered in forest, but now less than 20 per cent. of it is. That reduction will affect rainfall and the soil's stability and induce drought. That canopy has to be replaced and we know how to do it—we know how to build dams to trap the water that is necessary to irrigate the trees when they are first planted. However, to do that, we need to put in place a thorough development programme that will encourage people not to cut down trees for heating and cooking purposes—other ways of cooking and providing warmth at night will have to be found.
Although we know how to take such steps, why have we not done so? Why have we not pursued those objectives during the past 10 years, after the previous tragic famine occurred? So far as I can gather, no progress has been made in southern Ethiopia. I imagine that more programmes have been put in place in the Tigrayan areas of Dese, because Tigrayans dominate the Ethiopian Government, which brings us back to the fact that the responsibility for the tragedy lies with that Government and their insane pursuit of a tragic war, which has killed many people on both sides of the border. They have unnecessarily spent huge sums of money on that war.
The British Government created a problem when they changed the direction of aid that is sent to Ethiopia. The Department for International Development decided not to give reduced amounts of money to non-governmental organisations and to give more through Ethiopian Government Departments. The problem with that approach is that once the money has been given, we do not know where it ends up. It has clearly been used to buy arms to pursue the war against Eritrea—it has not been used to preserve the environment, build dams or provide the water that is necessary for drinking, cooking and agriculture. The British Government's policy is mistaken. They must return to the previous policy of sending money to competent NGOs in the field and supporting long-term sustainable development programmes. That might prevent the occurrence of such tragedies.
In the meantime, we have to get food to the starving people and we must do so quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) suggested a quick way to do so. We may also be able to send aid through northern Kenya. We must get the process going quickly, get ECHO to provide the money and, above all, have the food delivered to the people who need it as quickly as possible. I beg the Government to take emergency action, with all our partners, to enable that to happen.
10.29 am
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to previous contributors for keeping their speeches brief, giving me rather more time than I had expected. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this debate. It is an important debate, which ought to extend beyond the normal repertory company of those hon. Members who are interested in international development.
The tragedy is that the debate probably would have extended beyond the Chamber, had it not been for news values that put Zimbabwe in the headlines in the past

201WH
few days, taking attention away from what is happening in the Horn of Africa. I am afraid that it is a reflection on our society that our view of what should be a priority issue is often dictated by the media. That gives particular value to our opportunity to discuss the issue.
We have had a good debate. My hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) have all raised the essential issues in relation to what is happening in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
It is not my objective to criticise the Government. Providing effective aid is difficult, particularly in areas such as the Ogaden, which are inhabited by nomadic peoples. The underlying question is how we provide support for development in a conflict situation. It is a truism that the first casualty of war is truth—the second is civil society, especially its capacity to feed and educate the people and keep them healthy. Such issues come to the fore in every conflict situation. It seems to me, in opposition to the conventional view, that it is even more important to get development aid into those areas, to sustain and, where possible, build on the people's capacity to feed and educate themselves and keep themselves healthy under those circumstances. The attention of Governments, and the resources that are available to them, will, inevitably, be directed elsewhere.
What is the most effective way of providing aid? Is it Government-to-Government aid or multilateral aid to Governments? It almost certainly is not. That is why it is so important to find ways for peoples—rather than Governments—to communicate with each other, using effective NGOs, multilateral organisations, and perhaps even tiers below central Government, to provide effective support.
If the world is to deal effectively with the problem, it must be stopped at source. That means doing something effective to control arms and stop the arms sales that allow conflicts—particularly, but not exclusively, in the continent of Africa—not only to flare up, but to continue, year after sad year, with tragic consequences. Britain is far from blameless. The British Government did not cease the sale of arms to Ethiopia and Eritrea until after the conflict had started. Last February, a British company was found to be organising a shipment of arms to Eritrea—the case is with the Belgian courts at the moment—and Britons are still running guns in the Congo. We must take much more effective action both to control arms on a worldwide basis and to control the activities of arms brokers. We have the same argument about that time and again. The question is, when will it happen and when will effective action will be taken?
My third point relates to the comments of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who asked how we should create an effective rapid reaction force. We all pay lip service to that concept and say that the United Nations should be doing more, but what an example the European Union sets with the gross deficiencies of its present arrangements. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we should send money to the European Union for this purpose, because far more effective action can be taken by the non-governmental organisations that exist in Britain and the international development teams that the Government have at their
202WH
disposal. Why on earth should we use a route that has proven time and again to be ineffective and to lack proper urgency?
The constant problem is not merely the quantum of aid in terms of finance and food, but the means of getting it to the affected area. If the world community is to deal effectively with natural catastrophes, or catastrophes that have more than a little to do with the human element—as is the case in Ethiopia—we must have the means of getting goods from one place to another. In the Horn of Africa, east Africa and the whole rim of the Indian Ocean, such resources do not exist. It is not that they are not deployed in time; they simply do not exist, and they will not exist until the international community decides that it has to meet the need. It is no good asking our armed forces and our navies to help with such problems in areas that are far from their sphere of influence and from the locations that they usually patrol, which it takes weeks to reach and which they will have the wrong equipment to deal with. That was exactly the problem that the hon. Gentleman experienced in trying to assist in Mozambique, and it will happen time and time again in an area of the world that is prone to natural catastrophe but for which we do not have the resources to meet the need.
I hope that countries that are rich and have the civil and military resources will consider the rim of the Indian ocean and think about how to establish permanent resources to deal with crises in that area. I hope that that is not too utopian a view. Some countries are not always in the lead in providing resources. Indeed, some rich countries that are not a million miles away from the Horn of Africa might be tempted to contribute a little more to establishing a permanent resource that would be available as a contingency.
We can deal with problems in the Mediterranean, which is on our doorsteps. At a push, we can deal with problems in the Caribbean, which is on the doorstep of America and is the focus of some European interests. We can even deal with problems in the Far East. However, we cannot help the huge area under discussion, where so little exists and where the countries are so poor. With the best will the world, the Governments in the region are unable to deal with massive acts of God or acts commissioned by man that result in misery and tragedy for so many people. They are rendered powerless to deal with them by a combination of their history, the debt with which they are saddled and other different pressures.
I should like to leave the Minister with that one point. I do not imagine that he has a magic wand that will enable him to achieve those aims, but I ask him to argue seriously for them in the international forums in which he speaks. I hope that Britain can begin to take a lead in these important matters.
10.39 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on winning the opportunity to have this debate, which concerns a very important matter. I shall try hard not to duplicate the excellent contributions that have been made. I want to give the Minister plenty of time to answer, which is the purpose of these debates.

203WH
It is heartbreaking to see the pictures that have been on television. The Horn of Africa, not merely Ethiopia, is affected. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that it is foolish to ask what the United Kingdom Government are doing to sort things out, as though they have a magic wand and can be everywhere and do everything. That is unrealistic politics. As I gain more experience in this context, I feel that it would be better for the Government to focus resources in preference to spreading them widely.
I am not saying that the problem is directly our Government's responsibility. The Government of Ethiopia must take primary responsibility for the way in which they spend money and use resources. It is good that we live in a world where more and more people know what is happening around the globe. Through globalisation, multimedia and technology, more and more people in developed countries such as ours find it utterly unacceptable to stand by and watch children die of famine in the 21st century. I welcome the increased involvement in the developed world of millions of ordinary people.
What is happening in Ethiopia shows up some of the fundamental issues with which people involved in development try to work? It highlights the responsibility of Governments. It raises the dilemma of what we should do to help a country whose Government are guilty of corruption and misuse of funds. It brings to our attention the distinction between long-term development and immediate humanitarian aid and the vital question of where the United Kingdom should focus its primary efforts. It leads us to ask how we can dispense essential humanitarian aid during conflict and it focuses our minds on the role and effectiveness of the multilateral agencies.
What we are doing to help resolve the conflict? As the Secretary of State has often said—and I agree—the key to helping a country in conflict is to bring the conflict to an end. That is common sense. Since the end of the cold war, we no longer have so much influence, through the power blocs in the east or west, with Governments in the developing world. The old colonial relationships are falling away. Both those changes are to be welcomed, but they lead us into a vacuum in which we wonder who has the primary responsibility for intervening in the conflict in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Which nation state is seeking the lead role? What are the United Nations, the European Union and the United States doing? I hope that we do not fall between two stools, with no country taking the lead. Perhaps, if aid and development departments are too carefully separated from foreign offices and diplomacy in Governments such as ours, full use will not be made of the leverage that development and aid can supply in bringing Governments to their senses.
What is the United Kingdom Government's policy on dispensing aid to countries in conflict? Simply cutting aid is a short-term and probably wrong-sighted response. Why are we cutting £20 million from our development budget for Ethiopia in the next three years? Would not it be better to suspend payments to the Government if they misuse the money, but to pump the same support through the non-governmental and other bodies that make up civil society there? Many of those bodies can tackle long-term issues such as education, heath care and the strengthening of civil society. I agree
204WH
absolutely with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that the right response is to pump equivalent support through the NGOs rather than suspend payments to the Government.
How do the Government justify cutting aid to Mozambique—another country in turmoil—in the next three years? I do not understand the decision; I am not sure that the British Government understands it. I would love an answer to the question. Is it not baffling and upsetting that the sum cut from Government support to Mozambique in the next three years equates roughly to the sum given by the British people to the appeal launched some months ago by the charities? If that is the way in which the Government are playing the situation, it is a disturbing trend.
On our response to aid to countries in conflict, how can the Government justify cutting the aid to the Government of Ethiopia while increasing it to the Government of Zimbabwe, which is also a country in conflict? I am not seeking to cause trouble for the Government, I simply do not understand the way in which they justify the move.
The Government may say that they are pumping money into Zimbabwe through the NGOs, as I have called for, but that is not the case. Most of our support to that country goes directly to its Government. Some of it goes to the police force—the same force that is standing by and watching white farmers being beaten and killed. What signal is that sending out? Zimbabwe is involved in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We are told that 70 per cent. of Zimbabweans are opposed to the involvement. Military equipment worth $200 million has been lost and wasted by the Zimbabwean Government, which is involved in ethnic cleansing. Will the Minister give us an answer today? I have asked several times. How can they justify continuing their support for Zimbabwe while cutting support to Ethiopia?
I want to explore with the Minister the role of multilateral agencies versus nation states. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) gave a compelling contribution on the role and performance of the ECHO.The Independent yesterday described in detail the EU's procedure for making the decision to send aid that is required before aid can be sent and properly distributed in the right place.
Do we not learn again and again that the response of the United Nations and of the European Union is often deeply disappointing? Are two options not before us? We could put much more energy and attention into trying to improve the performance of the multilateral agencies. I would love to hear what the Department for International Development seeks to do on the matter. What focus are the Minister and the Secretary of State placing on getting a better performance from those organisations? Are the Government concluding, as many of us are, that time and again the response to such crises by nation states far outweighs the performance and response of the multilateral agencies? The difficulty is one of lack of co-ordination. What are the Government doing to improve co-ordination between nation states on situations such as those in Ethiopia and Mozambique?

205WH
We are told that such situations will arise more and more because of climate change. A key issue in the 21st century will probably be how we decide the way in which to respond. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) set out a five-point plan for the Government's response to Ethiopia, with which I agreed so much. There is a lack of clarity in the Government's response to the Ethiopian crisis and to countries in conflict generally. Will the Minister bring an end to that confusion and spell out precisely what the Department will do in response to countries in conflict in general and Ethiopia in particular?
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Like everyone else, I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on obtaining this debate, which I welcome, although I would have welcomed a little more time to reply to it.
I take no lessons from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the Opposition spokesman. I have been a spokesman on international development for years, but the hon. Gentleman has never asked a question on the matter or taken part in debates on the subject. However, I shall take note of what was said by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and other hon. Members.
It is sad that the debate is necessary. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, it could have taken place at any time during the past 20 or 30 years. The story is far too familiar. Environmental degradation, military conflict, pressure from a growing population and ill-judged policies are a lethal mix. They bring hunger and misery on a massive scale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) pointed out, the international community's response is in many cases far too slow. We respond to the television pictures, but when the media interest dies down, we return to the same cycle. We should take time to consider the problem in a more measured way and learn from such sad examples as Ethiopia.
Although the food situation is certainly critical in the south and east of Ethiopia, the crisis is not on the same scale as that of 1984–85. That is not only the Government's view; it is what the 15 international non-governmental organisations working in Ethiopia said in their press release in Addis Ababa last week. Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world. More than half the population scrapes by on less than $1 a day, and 85 per cent. of the people depend on agriculture for a living. Rural Ethiopia is exceptionally poor. Food insecurity is a common cause of rural poverty.
Every year, between 2 million and 3 million people experience food shortages. That situation has been made worse by the failure of the rains in the past three or four years. The 8 million people who are defined as being at risk are those who live in households with a chronically insecure food supply. Those people are desperately poor. For a large proportion of them—perhaps as many as 5 million—it would not matter whether it rained or not. Their principal problem is not drought but poverty—real, long-term, grinding poverty.
206WH
The press release issued last week by the 15 NGOs ended with the statement, with which we agree, that the people of Ethiopia need peace, a subject raised by the hon. Member for South-West Devon. The Algerian presidency is trying to resolve the conflict on behalf of the Organisation of African Unity. The President of Algeria has invited the Foreign Ministers of Ethiopia and Eritrea to Algiers in the coming weeks for further discussions. We and our international partners continue fully to support the efforts of the OAU. We have urged both sides—I now do so again—to co-operate with the OAU mediators to end that futile conflict immediately.
The 15 NGOs' also suggested that more development was needed and that debt relief was necessary. How true that is. Food aid will not lift those 8 million people out of their long-term, chronic poverty: sustainable economic and social development will. The Government of Ethiopia knows that; indeed, they have made good progress since they came to power in 1991. That success has attracted substantial support from the international community. The tragedy is that the war with Eritrea has seriously affected Ethiopia's economic and social progress. We cannot dismiss that as though it were unimportant.
I shall cite some statistics that were not previously available. Comparing the current financial year with the period from 1995–
96 to 1997–98, recurrent expenditure on defence has almost tripled as a percentage of gross domestic product. At the same time, expenditure in the social sector fell from 3.7 per cent. to 3.4 per cent. of GDP. More worrying is the fact that capital expenditure in the social sector—investment for the future in schools and health centres—has dropped by a third during the past two years. Domestic borrowing has risen and external reserves have halved.
Those figures highlight the unsustainability of the military conflict, which has caused dialogue between the International Monetary Fund and Ethiopia to break down. External assistance has, sadly, been reduced and grant financing by donors has been halved. It is difficult to estimate how much aid the Government have lost as a result of the war, but a good estimate is between £90 million and £165 million. That is all the more serious and regrettable because, in the pre-war period, public expenditure was becoming poverty-focused.
Hon. Members mentioned working with NGOs. We continue to provide support for NGOs. We are involved in programmes with Farm Africa—I, too, welcome the Speaker's initiative on that—and SOS Sahel and the affiliated regions. But hon. Members, especially mems of the Select Committee, know that to create real change, we need to work directly with Governments who have pro-poor policies. If they do not, we work around them with the NGOs. The two approaches are not in conflict; they are complementary with good governance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley mentioned debt. The war has had an effect on Ethiopia's access to debt relief. Britain has taken the lead on obtaining debt relief for countries such as Ethiopia. It should have reached its heavily indebted poor countries decision point by now. Sadly, however, it is unlikely to do so this year, even if it quickly resumes its dialogue with the IMF. Its payments to service the debt will consume resources that could and should be spent on

207WH
the poor—the very people we have heard described today and who we see on our television screens. That is another calamity of that unnecessary war.
The war has also affected the relief effort. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to logistics in his helpful contribution. Unlike the hon. Member for South-West Devon, he understands what it is like to be in government. The war has diverted trucking capacity and increased costs by making grazing land inaccessible, denying rural households additional income sources in Eritrea and denying access to the ports of Massawa and Assab in Eritrea. The Ethiopian Government have argued that the ports are not well placed to help with the relief effort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, how can it be easier to manage a relief operation through two ports—Djibouti and Berbera—rather than four? It defies logic.
An international effort is under way to bring help to Ethiopia. Some 85,000 tonnes of food was brought into the country in the first quarter of the year. Substantial pledges have been made—433,000 tonnes from the European Community for this year and a further 110,000 tonnes by June next year to help replenish the emergency food security reserve, which we helped to establish. The hon. Member for Banbury rightly said that we pay 17 per cent. of the cost of that package. Total pledges are adequate to cover existing food requirements, but they need to reach the people in need quickly. We are providing more assistance and pressing the EC to speed up its procedures to move food quickly. Some 30,000 tonnes was delivered through Djibouti last week. The assistance is arriving.
We also need to remind the Ethiopian Government of the need to play their part. I welcome their pledge to provide 100,000 tonnes of food aid, but only 7,000 tonnes has been delivered and none to the hungry of the Somali region. Food shortages have been exacerbated by drought, but they have not been caused by drought alone. In fact, 1999 was the third best agricultural production year in Ethiopia's history. The main rains last year were good, and wheat and pulse production figures were high. Could not the Ethiopian Government have taken the opportunity to provide food aid to those areas where the rains have failed in successive years to help those communities cope?
An importance governance issue is involved, as hon. Members said. Is it reasonable to blame the international community alone? Of course we have a responsibility, but we cannot be blamed for the plight of so many of Ethiopia's people. Their Government also have a responsibility. It is not true that we have cut humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia because of the war. We see humanitarian assistance not as a carrot but as something that must be provided. Like all other major donors, we have reduced long-term development assistance, but we would like it to be restored. When a successful peace deal is achieved in Ethiopia, we will continue our long-term development assistance to Ethiopia and Eritrea.
If I had more time, I would respond to the questions asked by several hon. Members and explain why the hon. Member for South-West Devon is, as usual, completely misguided about Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Maternity Care
11 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with colleagues the implementation of good practice in maternity care. First, I must declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives, a position that I hold with great pleasure and pride. As many hon. Members will be aware, in 1991 and 1992 I had the honour and privilege to chair the Select Committee on Health when it undertook an in-depth inquiry into maternity services. As the Select Committee's 1992 report says, the inquiry was instigated,
hearing many voices saying that all is not well with the maternity services and that women have needs which are not being met.
Paragraph 33 of the report says:
Given the absence of conclusive evidence, it is no longer acceptable that the pattern of maternity care provision should be driven by presumptions about the applicability of a medical model of care based on unproven assertions.
It would be proper for me to pay public tribute to the Select Committee's advisers who were: Caroline Flint, a well-known independent midwife; Mrs. Rosemary Jenkins of the Royal College of Midwives; Dr. Naren Patel, consultant obstetrician at Nine wells hospital, Dundee; Professor Osmund Reynolds, a close personal friend for many years, who was Professor of neo-natal paediatrics at University college and Middlesex school of medicine; Professor Philip Steer, Professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Charing Cross and Westminster medical school; and another personal friend, Dr. Luke Zander, senior lecturer in the department of general practice at the United Medical and Dental School of Guy's and St. Thomas's.
All those people were vital to the production of the Committee's report. I should like to express my appreciation, these many years later, for the tremendous support that I received during the inquiry as Chairman of that Committee from all Committee members. To mention just one, the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) was, with me, the driving force behind the inquiry. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to say that I wish the hon. Lady, who is in hospital at the moment, a full and speedy recovery.
The future reconfiguration of maternity units is currently under discussion, which I believe provides an opportunity to reshape the provision of maternity care in the United Kingdom. Where trust mergers are unavoidable, resources must be directed in such a way as to enhance the quality of maternity care. This is an opportunity for the Government to act on the growing research evidence that demonstrates the huge advantages of midwifery-centred care in the provision of maternity services.
Following the Health Committee report in 1992, an expert committee chaired by Baroness Cumberlege, a health Minister at the time, considered the implications of the Health Committee's recommendations. In due course a report called "Changing Childbirth" was published, setting targets for implementation and recommendations for good practice. On page 1, the report said:

209WH
The Select Committee concluded that a medical model of care should no longer drive the service and that women should be given unbiased information and an opportunity for choice in the type of maternity care they receive, including the option, previously largely denied to them, of having their babies at home or in small maternity units.
As the Chamber knows, "Changing Childbirth" became policy for the maternity services in England in 1994 and remains the policy today.
The report called for fundamental changes in the maternity services, based on three principles—the importance of involving women in making informed decisions about their care, making maternity services accessible and attractive to all women and having public involvement in the monitoring and planning of maternity services. A key to putting those principles into practice was reinstating more autonomous midwifery practice and enabling midwives to provide continuity of care. Time and again when we were taking evidence from mothers to be, they talked about the importance of the continuity of care—having women cared for by a named midwife through the whole of pregnancy, for labour and birth, when possible, and in the early weeks following birth. It was recommended that midwives be organised into small groups, working between community and hospital. An explicit target was to have 75 per cent. of women cared for by a midwife whom they have got to know for labour and birth. That is something that I feel strongly about, as did the Health Committee at the time.
The Royal College of Midwives has supported "Changing Childbirth" since its publication and throughout its implementation and remains committed to the principle of a woman-centred care structure. It is no longer appropriate for maternity care to be for the convenience of consultants and doctors; it is there for the mothers and babies.
In a new year press release, the Minister for Public Health stated:
Maternity services are at the heart of the service that women and babies of this country want and deserve.
In the opinion of some of the user organisations, this is now an issue not of choice but of public health. In the nearly 11 years since "Changing Childbirth" was published, maternity care has, sadly, not moved towards the ideals embodied in the report. Indeed, and I say this with some regret, for most women the likelihood of a normal birth with a known midwife is even less now. The centralisation and medicalisation of birth in large obstetric units has intensified rather than declined. Caesarean section rates since "Changing Childbirth" have increased to over 30 per cent. in some hospitals and have recently shown signs of rising still further. This is a major cause for concern.
Full implementation of "Changing Childbirth" depended to a large extent on good midwifery practice. With the severe shortage of midwives, many of the excellent pilot schemes that were originally set up have failed to continue. The latest statistical analysis of the register of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting reveals that there are 33,897 practising midwives and a further 58,286 who are registered but not practising. That is a lamentable waste of skills and talent.
210WH
Sadly, since 1994, the quality of maternity care has deteriorated. Consumer groups, including one for which I have the greatest regard, the Association for Improvements in Maternity Service, which is known affectionately as AIMS and is chaired by that splendid lady, Beverley Beech, is reporting many more serious complaints from all over the country. It attributes them to a reduction in midwifery staff, particularly in the more senior midwifery grades—it is worth emphasising that. At the same time, it is reporting many letters from former midwives who have left the service in despair because they were not allowed to practice normal midwifery and provide the normal births for which they had been trained. Instead, many became obstetric nurses in high-tech hospital units.
Caesarean sections are a matter that causes considerable concern. Some obstetricians now provide caesarean sections on request for women with no medical reason to have them, thereby adding to the risk to both mother and child as well as to national health service costs. At the same time, NHS trusts are failing to provide proper care for those women who want and should have a normal birth. Delivery by caesarean section carries a higher risk, as I am sure that many hon. Members know—not least among them the Minister—for both mother and baby. The mother has a slower rate of recovery, a reduced chance of successful breastfeeding, an increased need for post-natal care—which, sadly, is in short supply—and a greater risk of complications.
One of the major risks of caesarean section comes with the birth of the next child and any subsequent children. The mother has a greater risk of placenta praevia when the placenta blocks the outlet, leading to haemorrhage, an increased risk of the placenta becoming embedded in the wall of the uterus, and the risk of life-threatening haemorrhage when an attempt is made to remove it. There has been an increase in emergency hysterectomies carried out after birth to save the life of the mother who has had one or more caesarean sections for previous births. If those caesarean sections were unnecessary, surely the resulting problems are a high price to pay. Ironically, medical litigation costs the NHS more than £300 million every year and obstetric claims account for more than 50 per cent. of that total.
Good practice is the provision of a service that allows women who wish to have a normal labour and delivery without medical assistance to do so. There is now ample medical evidence that normal births at home are at least as safe as hospital births. However, it is rare for women to receive clear, unbiased advice—I say that with fervour—or to be able to choose where to give birth to their babies. Women are not told of the risks of hospital births, but the risks of home birth, both real and imagined, are heavily stressed by the medical profession. AIMS receives calls daily from women who want to give birth at home but are being persuaded into accepting a hospital birth and now that the midwifery shortage is acute, staff are telling mothers, "Should there be a staff shortage in the hospital when you go into labour you will have to come into the hospital."
I turn to midwifery education. The centralisation and medicalisation of birth in large obstetric units has resulted in a significant group of midwives who are not confident of supporting a woman who wants a normal

211WH
physiological birth. They can only offer drugs for pain relief and are stressed by caring for a woman who is not immobilised by a foetal heart monitor and connected to an epidural. In a recent AIMS journal, a non-practising midwife, deploring the decline in good skilled midwifery practice, commented that student midwives learn good theory in the classrooms, but bad practice in the wards of our hospitals. AIMS hears from an increasing number of student midwives who say that, although they are nearing the end of their training, they have not witnessed a normal physiological birth. Is that not extraordinary? Surely there is something wrong with a system that allows that to happen.
At Chelsea and Westminster hospital, 80 per cent. of pregnant women are given epidural anaesthesia. As a result, student midwives are unable to understand and support a woman in normal labour. Such women behave very differently from those who are given epidurals. Because of that training failure, midwives no longer understand the natural progression of labour in a normal, unmedicated physiological birth. Indeed, AIMS files bulge with reports of the strategies adopted by many midwives to persuade women who had home births to give birth in hospital.
What is the way forward? The Royal College of Midwives wants maternity services to be orientated around primary care, and the use of midwifery-led units to be increased. Examples of successful units include Trowbridge hospital—which is part of Wiltshire Health Care NHS trust—where more than 600 deliveries a year take place. In inquiring into maternity services, members of the Health Committee visited that hospital. The Edgware birth centre recently presented the findings of its two-year project in an evaluation report.
Hospitals in which team midwifery has excelled include Bolton hospital—again, in my own part of the country—which is part of Bolton Hospitals NHS trust. At the Crewe health centre—which is even closer to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and is part of the Cheshire Community Healthcare NHS trust—the caesarean section rate has been reduced significantly. I applaud that statistic, the hospital, the midwives and other clinicians involved at Leighton hospital.
The current shortage of midwives in maternity units is a problem in terms of recruitment and retention. If depreciation in services is to be avoided, that shortage must be addressed by health authorities and, if I may say so, the Minister in particular. Education and training must also be emphasised. Salford provides a good example of a comprehensive training school. Students there experience deliveries from a variety of backgrounds. The recent practice of recruiting consultant midwives is an encouraging development that should be extended throughout the United Kingdom. If the theoretical training of student midwives is to be reinforced and supported, they must be provided with a thorough grounding and understanding of normal birth.
The education system should be linked to stand-alone midwifery birth centres, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that. A community-based service that supports case-load midwifery was introduced in Professor Lesley Page's one-to-one midwifery care
212WH
scheme. I have met Professor Page and 1 have the greatest respect for her. Her contribution to maternity services is outstanding.
The Minister and hon. Members will know that one-to-one midwifery was established in November 1993 in the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust, at Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea hospital, and Hammersmith hospital, so that the "Changing Childbirth" principles could be put into practice. Each midwife has a case load of 40 women. Sensibly, each works with a partner and, so that they can cover holidays and so forth, they get to know the women in each other's case load. Partnerships are organised in group practices of six to eight midwives, which allows allocation of case load, mutual support and a forum for peer review of practice. Again, those are sound procedures. The one-to-one midwives survey geographical catchments area includes low and high-risk women. If the woman's pregnancy is low risk, the midwife manages the care, but if it is high risk, an obstetrician does so, although, importantly, the one-to-one midwife will continue to provide midwifery care.
The education system should be linked to a home birth service in which all midwives are supported and enabled to practise autonomously, should they wish to do so. For many years, midwives in independent practice have been able to provide a high-quality service for the women whom they attend—they are often high-risk women who are unwilling to have a second hospital birth. In order to practise autonomously and to fulfill their role to its fullest extent, those midwives have had to practise independently and, sadly, outside the NHS. It is time that their contribution to maternal and child health was recognised and those dedicated midwives were supported within our splendid NHS. The situation in New Zealand shows that an independent model in the health service would enable all women—not simply those who can afford the fees or those for whom the midwives provide charitable care without payment—to benefit from real choice, control over their body and continuity of care. That restructuring of care would enable obstetricians to focus on and develop quality of care for high-risk women and those who choose to give birth in a high-tech unit.
Several initiatives have had excellent outcomes, including the one-to-one midwifery practice, which I discussed earlier, and the Edgware birth centre. During the two-year evaluation period between 1 September 1997 and 31 August 1999, 387 women had their babies at the centre, which was in line with the targets that had been set. In that period, 727 women booked into the centre; 19.4 per cent. transferred ante-natally and 12 per cent. transferred during labour.
I am delighted to say that women who planned to deliver at the birth centre during the evaluation period recorded very high levels of maternal satisfaction, which is crucial when women give birth. They also had need of far fewer interventions than women who were in the same risk category but who delivered in hospital.
I hope that the Minister will bear with me while I give some statistics. In relation to planned caesareans among low-risk women, there were interventions in 3.3 per cent. of cases in local hospitals and in only 0.3 per cent. of cases in birth centres. The national figure, which includes all women and covers the period 1996–97, was 8 per cent.

213WH
In relation to inductions among low-risk women, there were interventions in 16.8 per cent. of cases in local hospitals and in 7.3 per cent. of cases in birth centres, which is significantly lower. The national figure, which includes all women and covers the period 1996–97, was 20 per cent.
In relation to epidurals among low-risk women, there were interventions in 30.7 per cent. of cases in local hospitals and in only 11.4 per cent. of cases in birth centres. The national figure was 19 per cent.
In relation to episiotomies among low-risk women, there were interventions in 18.9 per cent. of cases in local hospitals and in only 5.1 per cent. of cases in birth centres. The national figure was 20 per cent.
In relation to the use of forceps among low-risk women, there were interventions in 5.1 per cent. of cases in local hospitals—the figure for the use of the ventouse in that category was 9.5 per cent.—and in birth centres the relevant figure was 2 per cent. for forceps and just 1.9 per cent. for the ventouse, which is the vacuum extractor procedure. The national figure was 11 per cent. Some of those figures were provided by the Department of Health.
In addition, women who delivered at the birth centre had labours that were on average 15 per cent. shorter than the labours of similar low-risk women who delivered in local hospitals. Much less use was made of clinical anaesthesia such as pethidine. Remarkably, 50 per cent. of babies born at the centre during the evaluation period were born in water.
The cost of deliveries at the birth centre was significantly cheaper—by up to 30 per cent.—than that for similar women delivering in hospitals.
The research and evaluation has some limitations—the comparatively small sample, the difficulty of obtaining comprehensive and accurate financial information, the lack of information about women who choose not to book at the centre, and the fact that the research was done at the start of the birth centre project.
Another practice that I am sure is well known to the Department and the Minister is the Albany midwifery practice. The practice's costs are £180,000 for the midwifery care of 2,316 women, of whom 47 per cent. are Caucasian and 53 per cent. black African, Vietnamese or Asian. The home birth rate is 37 per cent. The rate for non-pharmacological analgesia is 65 per cent. The rate for spontaneous vaginal delivery is very high, at 78.9 per cent. The rate for intact perineum is 63.5 per cent—that is very important to women. At four weeks, 74 per cent. of women were breastfeeding.
For those who do not know, I shall explain the history of the south-east London midwifery group practice, which I shall call the Albany practice. It was established in 1994 as a self-employed, self-managed group of midwives and a practice manager. The aim of the group is to provide continuity of midwifery care to local women—ante-natally, during the intra-partum period and post-natally—with known midwives, with a policy of targeting certain groups and promoting equity of access, thereby meeting the objectives of "Changing Childbirth".
Dr. Peter Brand: I am very impressed by the Albany statistics. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me
214WH
whether the 26.5 per cent. of patients that did not have intact perineum had episiotomies or perineal tears? Earlier, he said that the episiotomy rate at the Edgware birth centre is extraordinarily low—much lower than the rate for intact perineum that he quoted for Albany.
Mr. Winterton: I respect the hon. Gentleman for his professional knowledge. I cannot immediately give him an answer, but I shall certainly ascertain that statistic and come back to him. It is a relevant question, and I am sorry that I am not currently in a position to respond to it.
The Albany practice secured direct funding from the health commission to provide midwifery care for 130 women a year. The group also looked after a further 20 women from the Greenwich area. The mode of care offered quickly proved to be extremely popular with women, and the group's work soon became nationally and internationally acclaimed as ground-breaking. It is still valued as an important resource for all those who are interested in that type of innovative midwifery practice.
Towards the end of 1996, despite its success, the Albany practice was under serious threat. It became apparent that the health authority could not readily make funds available for it to continue. Having always had positive connections with King's college hospital with—especially strong support from Cathy Warwick, the director of midwifery—the practice proposed a subcontract with King's health care trust.
Although that would inevitably mean losing some of its autonomy, the group felt that it would be worth while in view of the potential of such collaboration. I am pleased to report that the health authority was supportive of such a solution and agreed to contribute to the funding required for the new approach. In the light of the practice's excellent outcomes and predicted cost-effectiveness and health gain among the local population, both parties are hopeful about the effects of making the Albany practice midwifery model part of what I would describe as midwifery mainstream. The proposal would also relieve some of the pressure imposed by long-term midwifery vacancies at King's college hospital.
The Minister will know that the Albany practice is one of eight midwifery group practices at King's. The group comprises seven midwives and a practice manager based at the Peckham Pulse and it is self-employed and self-managed. A sub-contract has been negotiated between King's and the Albany practice to provide maternity care for women in and around Peckham. I am sure that that is of great interest to a friend of the Minister's, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). The case load is generated by four local general practitioners, some self-referrals and some referrals from consultant obstetricians at King's.
The Albany midwifery practice offers women-centred care, as recommended by the "Changing Childbirth" maternity group. The practice offers continuity of midwifery care with two known midwives for each woman. It provides ante-natal, post-natal and intrapartum care. I believe that the Albany practice is unique in the United Kingdom, but I hope that that uniqueness is quickly lost and that its example can spread throughout the country.

215WH
The House and women owe a great deal to the Health Committee report and to the subsequent work of Baroness Cumberlege. It is important that maternity services in Britain are focused on the mother and the baby. Doctors have a role to play, but care should no longer be organised around doctors, obstetricians, gynaecologists and the medical profession. It should be a service specifically for mothers and babies, in which midwives have a pivotal role to play. I am delighted to be associated with them and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my concerns.
11.30 am
Mr. David Drew: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for putting the case so fluently, in his own inimitable way. It is good to see that the Minister for Public Health is present to respond, as well as her shadow counterpart, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).
I want to speak almost entirely about the midwife-led aspect of maternity care. I was born through caesarean section, through no fault of my own, and I know what an important aspect of care midwifery is. Stroud has a midwife unit that is one of only two remaining units in the south-west. It was under threat of closure some two or so years ago, which is why I have spoken on these matters in a debate on national health service maternity services that was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in the House on 11 February 1998. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were rehearsed in that pertinent debate.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield was Chairman of the Health Committee when the seminal document "Changing Childbirth" was published in 1993. I make no apology for repeating, rather than stealing or plagiarising, an important part of that document, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree in the debate in February 1998. The key element is choice. He quoted a passage that I shall quote again now, because it is so important. The Committee said:
We recommend that the policy of closing small rural maternity units on presumptive grounds of safety be abandoned forthwith. We further recommend that no decision be taken to close such a unit unless it can be explicitly and incontrovertibly demonstrated that they are failing to provide value for money and that the costs to the consumers are carefully taken into account in making such calculations. We recommend that in considering an appeal against the closure of such a unit, the Secretary of State should make presumption against closure unless the case is overwhelming, since we believe that there is a shift in attitude towards maternity care which can only be met by maintaining such units as a realistically available option.
Choice is the keynote of the debate, and that was borne out in the "Changing Childbirth" report. The issue is one of disseminating best practice and keeping maternity care as local as possible. The size of units is also important. Within reason, women want smaller units for pre-natal and intra-partum care, but also postnatally, including perhaps transferring from a district general hospital when they want to be closer to family and friends.
My contribution to the debate in 1998 was to argue strongly for midwife-led services in Stroud to continue. The Stroud News and Journal led an effective campaign, which I was happy to support. Our proposal involved
216WH
saving £150,000 from a budget of £248 million, which puts the matter in perspective. We wanted to show that women and families supported the continued operation of the unit in Stroud. That was partly due to its being part of a much larger operation in Stroud hospital, which has become a centre of excellence. I thank the Government for the recent upgrading of the accident and emergency department in Stroud. It seems important to have the appropriate range of services across the age range. There is an important development in elderly people's care on the hospital site, and it is important to keep the maternity unit there. In 1993, when "Changing Childbirth" was published, the unit was refurbished and was reopened by Dr. Mark Porter—some hon. Members know him—a constituent of mine who is known to me personally.
During the debate in February 1998, the then Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), promised that proper consultation would always take place on any proposal to close a unit, that the presumption would be against closure and that the Government would support best practice and new initiatives.
In discussing the two remaining threats I shall refer to a review document that I have just obtained. The two threats seem to be the economic case for further centralisation and medical opinion. The Government deserve praise for the money that they made available to my area's health authority in the Budget, and the commensurate changes made at the time, which have lifted the pall that was over the authority. However, a value for money argument can be made, and we cannot ignore it. Even so, very small sums are involved in relation to the overall budget.
When we last discussed the Stroud midwife-led maternity unit, it was decided to keep it open but to review it regularly. The latest 18-month review has just been completed. We did not talk explicitly about the cost, because that is a matter for the seven NHS trusts and the health authority. A more difficult problem was that of medical opinion. The hon. Member for Macclesfield made it clear that obstetricians and other specialists still continue to argue in favour of babies being delivered in district general hospital units.
I am not taking a dig at the GPs in my area, but they are generally somewhat ambivalent towards a local midwife-led service. That does not help, because most women will take their GP's advice when they receive the happy news that they are pregnant. If GPs gave a more positive response, on safety and the right to choose, we would have every reason to keep midwife-led units open. The risk factor is slight, but in difficult cases, Stroud is not a million miles away from consultant-led units in the district general hospitals at Gloucester or Cheltenham. We can have the best of both worlds. I hope that GPs and consultants will continue to listen.
The three keynote terms in the 1993 report and today's are the need for a service that is comprehensive, flexible and based on choice. The current review is now completed. The target was 350 births a year. That is difficult to reach; although the number of births has increased, it must be set against an overall decline. We are trying to go against the tide.

217WH
If complications arise, cases will inevitably be transferred to the district general hospital, which will reduce the number of women using the local midwife-led unit. Indeed, there is always pressure to go for the safe solution. I did not go for that option: two of my children, Laurence and Christopher, were born in Stroud maternity hospital. Esther was born at home with the help of the midwife service run from Stroud. I have personal experience of the quality of care and the personal service offered by the midwife service.
I do not wish to mix statistics with the hon. Member for Macclesfield—he left me for dead with his—but I have no reason to doubt their importance. The number of births each month can vary. For instance, in December 1998 there were only 13; last month, there were 27. That is obviously going in the right direction, but variations can occur. Transfers back to the midwife-led unit for ante-natal and post-natal care are somewhat unpredictable. However, such variations are inevitable because childbirth has yet to be completely sanitised. Long may that continue.
Some significant improvements have taken place. We now have the support of paediatricians at Gloucester Royal hospital. That has led to the drawing up of a protocol which shows that there is a belief that the service in Stroud is safe, that it has a high quality threshold and that it is popular. Much has been done to publicise the service and to show women in the area that it is open for business. The service wants to make itself known to as many people as possible. The fact remains, however, that GPs are not always as helpful as they might be. Anything that I can do to persuade them otherwise is important.
There is good support from the National Childbirth Trust, the league of friends of the hospital and the ladies circle that works with the league of friends. We are not yet at the threshold of 350 births a year. I hope that that will not be used as an opportunity to revisit the usual response—difficult meetings with officials—with many people being angry that their wonderful and well-loved service was threatened.
Much is happening. There are many initiatives. One of our midwives—Helen Conway—iswell known to me. She is in China learning about different ways of delivering and the use of acupuncture. Anyone who knows Stroud will be aware that we are very alternative there. I probably have more acupuncturists than general practitioners in my constituency. Acupuncture provision will fit centrally into what women seem to want.
I want from my hon. Friend the Minister a clear statement that there is a future for midwife-led units, that they are safe and that they should be there to respond to the choice that women wish to exercise. I want her to pass on my message to the local trust that we do not want to revisit the possible closure of the unit. Such threats lead to great public aggravation and take us no further forward. I want to hear that the costings, which are not as important as the medical opinion, can be put in place to show that the staff have a future. The staff may then breathe a sigh of relief and the women and families of the area may then be given the services
218WH
that they so clearly want, not only in the local midwife-led unit but at the district general hospital. The choice must always be there for people.
11.46 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I hesitate to contribute to the debate, as a man and, worse, a doctor with a qualification from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The college appears to be the baddie of the debate.
"Changing Childbirth" was a seminal document. It was important because it recognised that childbirth had changed over the years. When I first saw the title I thought that it was ridiculous. Women have always had babies and, other than Pallas Athene, who was delivered through an especially unusual route, they have had them vaginally or by caesarean section.
We have moved too far towards technical intervention in childbirth. However, I would like to remind the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who spoke with great depth of feeling about the benefits of natural childbirth, that natural childbirth can also result in a high rate of dead or handicapped babies. It can result in significant mutilation of mothers with subsequent obstetric disasters and perhaps, even more sadly for them, incontinence, which is extremely difficult to treat. One need only consider what happens in the third world, where nature is all that people can fall back on, to understand that natural childbirth does not deliver an especially good service. Whatever we discuss with regard to maternity care, we must not deny that nature needs professional and high-quality help.
I am as one with the hon. Member for Macclesfield in saying that the approach should be woman-centred. I was pleased that he acknowledged later in his contribution the importance of the baby. He was right to say that we need a personal service for women. Childbirth can be the most wonderful experience, not only for the woman having the baby and the family concerned but for the other people involved in the birth. The experience can also be hairy and frightening when things unexpectedly go wrong and get slightly messy. Whatever model we adopt, we must ensure the flexibility to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and, although it is early in his speech, he has not so far mentioned midwives. The midwife is a qualified professional, and if there is continuity of care, the mother to be can be provided with the confidence and expertise to have a normal birth. Midwives are professionals, and if it becomes necessary to involve a consultant, they will immediately pass over the case. However, the midwife can provide the continuity that is so essential to the woman in giving birth.
Dr. Brand: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman anticipated my next point. Professional help is required, and the lead professionals in this area are midwives. The expertise and time of midwives can make an enormous contribution to a normal delivery. I have no doubt that women who are well looked after, who feel relaxed and are confident of the support of someone they know, have much better births and the

219WH
process is much more positive. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that there is evidence that women who are relaxed and confident need less anaesthesia, but I do not agree that it is necessarily a bad thing for a woman to choose to have analgesia. At times during his speech, I thought that we were listening to the critics of Queen Victoria, who indulged in artificial anaesthetics during some of her many deliveries.
The essence of my remarks is that giving birth is the province of midwives. The setting for giving birth should be the personal choice of the woman who is having the baby, but in promoting home deliveries, which are the most satisfying part of one's career, it is important to remember that they can be carried out only if there are experienced midwives in sufficient number. Otherwise, one might find that no one is available, except a midwife 30 miles away whom the mother has never met, which destroys the whole idea of continuity of care.
It is also essential that a second pair of hands is available at the time of birth in case there are problems with the baby. It is essential that someone at the birth can intubate the baby if required. It is also essential that the home circumstances can be enhanced if necessary. One of the reasons why the Dutch have much better statistics than we do is that they provide social support in the later stages of pregnancy, which makes an enormous contribution. It is also vital that there should be ready access to a flying squad. I am one of the wicked GPs who dissuaded people from having their babies at home because it took about one hour for a flying squad to arrive. That is a complete waste of time, and a flying squad should include someone with obstetric experience as well as an anaesthetist.
We heard some good stories from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I had the privilege of witnessing the birth of both of my sons, but they were born in hospital. One of them would not have survived at home, and my wife would not have survived if she had been at home when she gave birth to the other. We must put this in perspective. Home deliveries require an adequate standard of professionalism at the home and back-up by the hospital unit. There should also be the option of the midwife transferring the mother to a midwife unit within the hospital or to an obstetric unit run by a consultant. We have made progress on that. The Cumberlege report was a bombshell for most obstetricians who withdrew into a professional laager saying, "The world will now stop." They realised that they had underestimated the professional capacity and capability of midwives and had overestimated their own importance in women's minds. Patients are sensible and pick who suits them best.
If we are to continue to extend the role of midwives, which is a positive approach, we need to do something about their training, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield said. We must also allow them to have a decent career structure. It is unacceptable for a qualified midwife to be employed at a D or E grade. That is what drives them out of the national health service. When we consider different patterns of deliveries—I was impressed by the statistics for the Edgware birth centre and the Albany unit—we must ensure that we compare like with like. Innovative units attract a different section of the population than a district general hospital, which is used by a more average part of the population. A pre-selected group might produce different outcomes.
220WH
The Health Committee last year, or possibly the year before, considered caesarean section rates published by the NHS executive. I asked how many home deliveries had occurred in the district for which the rates were being given, but that figure was not known. If 30 per cent. of normal babies are being born at home rather than in a hospital unit, it is obvious that caesareans are being performed on a different section of the population. We need to be clever with statistics because they can be used in different ways.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned the role of independent midwives. I have no problem with independent midwives, but they need to function within a framework that provides the full back-up that is available to other midwives. They must also accept clinical governance. I am afraid that independent midwives are sometimes reluctant to have their figures queried. It is not good enough to rely on high-profile press reports when something goes disastrously wrong. They should be licensed and have their competence evaluated, which should also happen to general practitioners. I hope that that will be part of the accreditation system. It is unacceptable for GPs to be on an intra-partum obstetric list if they are not involved in intra-partum care. It is unfair—and silly—to call out a practitioner who has not delivered a baby for two years to deal with a complication that is being handled by a professional who probably manages 100 deliveries a year. We need an ante-partum list and, with the right education, post-natal care will look after itself.
I am glad that we have had this debate. Not only is the way in which childbirth is being managed changing all the time, but so is the population that is giving birth. We must remember that women are now much older when they have their first baby. Again, I have some problem with the promotion of natural childbirth at all costs. We must consider the mother's age. It is rather rude to talk about elderly primates. The age used to be over 35; I think that it has now been raised to 40. There is no doubt that women have babies much more easily in their early 20s or late teens than in their late 30s or early 40s. It would be foolish to encourage people to take a completely natural route if any complications were envisaged.
Mr. Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the mother to be should make that choice—I accept with the best advice? To date the clinician has too often left no choice. Those who support the views that I have expressed want the mother to be to make that choice, but from a position of knowledge, if there are complications.
Dr. Brand: Of course the woman should make the choice, but it should be an informed choice and one that takes into account the outcome of the process—the baby. I do not accept that it is necessarily bad practice to have a high rate of epidurals, to offer analgesia or to have foetal monitoring, whether in the home or in hospital. If we are to screen out higher-risk procedures and anticipate events, the safest way to shift a baby to a place of safety is in the mother's womb, and not attached to something else.
Technology should help natural childbirth; we should not look to it as an alternative.
12.1 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on securing this important debate and drawing attention to the Health Committee's work on this issue. I found it particularly interesting to hear all the information about the Edgware birth centre. When that is on the record, many more people will be aware of its interesting statistics.
I know that the Minister for Public Health gives midwifery a high priority, because in her new year message she said that maternity services were at the heart of Government. She perhaps knew at the time just how important that would be to those in government. Indeed, we wish the Prime Minister and his wife all the best in their imminent happy event.
For all the fine words, there is a gathering crisis in midwifery when a third of all trusts cannot provide one-to-one care for a woman. There is nothing more terrifying for a woman who is in labour, perhaps for the first time, than when the midwife leaves the room. Although I have no information to support my theory, I suspect that such non-attendance occurs more often in an institutional setting than at home, when, by definition, the midwife has to be there. At such times, prospective parents feel very vulnerable if they are left alone with the incessant bleeping of the foetal monitor. It is just the sort of thing that "Changing Childbirth" was designed to avoid. I am pleased that hon. Members on all sides have paid tribute to the work of Baroness Cumberlege in producing that document, which is a seminal work. All of us are united in wanting to see it implemented.
It is essential to quantify the extent of the crisis. The Royal College of Midwives survey shows that three out of four midwifery units carry vacancies and that the number of long-term vacancies has risen to 55 per cent. of all vacant posts. That translates into a shortfall in absolute terms of 1,000 full-time midwives. There is no doubting the strong sense of vocation that midwives feel, but their morale is not good at present. That is not hearsay; the facts speak for themselves. Only 36 per cent. of registered midwives are practising today and the number of students entering midwifery education is falling. Several hon. Members have suggested reasons for that.
I echo the view that there should be a review of the salary structure in midwifery. Nurses' pay has increased, especially at the upper end, but midwives often find that their wage levels reach a plateau, despite years of experience in midwifery that should be recognised. Midwives, by definition, travel a great deal as part of their work and a further aggravation is that their mileage allowance remains very low. In order not to sound hypocritical, I should point out that it is less than half that of a Member of Parliament.
The recruitment and retention problems are not only due to pay levels. The number of vacancies has a bearing on working conditions. When vacancies are not filled, those who remain must carry a greater load. The average shortage of midwives is 2 per cent., but that disguises big regional variations, especially in the London catchments area where competing salaries make retention even more difficult. In the North Thames area,
222WH
the vacancy rate is 5.9 per cent., and in South Thames it is 6.1 per cent. Those figures are significantly above the national average.
Some of the low morale is related to the erosion of the status of the profession. Midwives feel that the integrity of their profession has been compromised by the fact that they are now trained jointly with nurses for much of their preparation for practice. Respect for that practice is undermined by forcing midwives to join nurses in, studying courses that are not relevant to midwifery—for example, courses designed to train nurses in the early detection of the signs of dementia. That is unlikely to be relevant to women of childbearing age. They may become demented during labour but it is not a permanent condition.
Another factor that has a bearing on the crisis in midwifery is the shortage of consultant posts in obstetrics. That is a piece of NHS mismanagement of the first order. In response to the shortage, an accelerated training programme—the Calman programme—was set up five years ago. It was agreed that the number of new grade, specialist registrars should increase at a rate of 6 per cent. a year. That was designed to achieve a target of 2,000 consultant posts over 15 years. However, the number of consultant posts has not kept pace with the target, and trained-obstetricians cannot now find jobs. Indeed, they are leaving the NHS altogether.
Last year, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives jointly published a document called "Towards Safer Childbirth". One of its recommendations was that a consultant should be present in the labour ward for 40 hours a week. Speaking as a lay woman in this matter, I cannot help observing that babies are no respecters of the 40-hour week and have a tendency to arrive at night. As I know to my cost, things can go wrong very suddenly during childbirth. It is important to have specialised help on hand if, for example, a woman suffers a haemorrhage.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) pointed out, the increasing age of women at childbirth is an important factor when considering the ratio of midwives and obstetricians to the number of women giving birth. For the first time, the average age of women at first birth is now over 30. There are more complications in childbirth as the age of the mother increases. The advancing age at first birth may also partially explain the rise in the caesarean section rate, although I agree with the main thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield that there is a strong tendency towards technical births rather than natural ones. However, it is important to note that the advancing age of women at first birth is likely to give rise to an increase in the caesarean section rate.
In another place, Earl Howe drew attention to the unacceptable level of preventable accidents in labour. He said:
1995, 453 babies died as a result of asphyxia or trauma suffered during labour or delivery.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 738.]
That represents half the total number of infant deaths in childbirth. The shortage of midwives must be a contributory factor to the state of morale in the obstetric profession.

223WH
Another important point that was brought out in the debate was that this country has one of the highest percentages of low birth weight babies, higher than even Albania and Latvia. That is a disgrace, and I would like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to tackle it. Low birth weight is, of course, associated with other health difficulties in later life. I suspect that it is not unrelated to the problem of childbirth to very young mothers and their level of knowledge about care of themselves and their babies during pregnancy. I want to hear from the Minister on that point.
Given the facts, it is surely time for the Government to restore the rate of growth in consultant posts, so that we are back on target for the full complement by 2010, as originally envisaged, and so that the considerable amount of public money that has gone into training doctors in obstetrics is not wasted because there are no posts to which they can be appointed. Then, we will see that training translated into helping women and midwives to ensure that we can improve on the number of safe deliveries. That must be our main goal, in implementing good practice in maternity services.
12.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on securing the debate. It is an important issue and is close to my heart, because of recent personal experience. I am aware of his long-standing interest in the subject. The report by the Select Committee that he chaired in the early 1990s prompted real and lasting change in the provision of maternity care. I pay tribute to that report and to the "Changing Childbirth" report and the work done by Baroness Cumberlege on the issues in the mid-1990s.
Huge advances have been made in the past few years in changing the experience of women during pregnancy and childbirth. There has been real progress towards the provision of a safer, more personal, woman-centred maternity service that offers women greater choice, continuity of care and control. It is now safer to give birth than ever. The figures for maternal and perinatal mortality are at their lowest ever level, and it is the overriding expectation of pregnant women, their partners, their families and those who care for them that the pregnancy and delivery will be safe and healthy for mother and baby.
Childbirth is about more than safety. Maternity services exist to support women throughout their pregnancy, to help them to experience pregnancy and childbirth as a positive and life-enhancing experience and to give their babies the best possible start in family life. On the whole, satisfaction rates for NHS maternity services are high. The Audit Commission report on maternity services, published in March 1997, found that 90 per cent. of the women surveyed were very pleased or pleased with how they were treated during pregnancy and childbirth. That is a high satisfaction rate, and it is a credit to the dedication and skills of all the professionals who are involved in maternity care.
There is, however, no room for complacency. "Changing Childbirth" set out a vision of maternity services with which few could disagree. The report's central principles—appropriateness, effectiveness and
224WH
accessibility in maternity care—are largely embedded in current mainstream practice. We are not, and cannot be, content to stand still. The Government must continue to examine maternity services to see what can be done to secure further improvements, particularly in the quality of care and in tackling inequalities of care.
I want to cover some of the issues raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield referred to unacceptable variations in caesarean section rates. The Department is concerned about those variations throughout the country and we need to deal with the lack of clarity about appropriate standards and best practice. We are aware of concern about the widespread variation, so we have put in place a chain of work to deal with that. First, we have taken steps to strengthen local audit processes and to publish figures on caesarean section rates by individual trusts for the first time. Secondly, we have commissioned a national audit study on caesarean section rates from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to set standards where they are badly needed. That move has been widely welcomed by professional groups, consumers and women. We shall look carefully to see what lessons can be learnt from the thorough audit and to ensure that the results are used to develop best practice in future. Thirdly, we have funded the development of clinical guidance in problem areas such as induction of labour and electronic foetal monitoring. Fourthly, we have worked closely with consumer organisations to improve information on caesarean section, because the information that is provided to pregnant women varies dramatically throughout the country.
The reconfiguration of maternity services was also raised. A report will be published shortly by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and I am sorry that it was not published before our debate, because it could have been used to inform that debate. I apologise for the fact that it is not yet in the public domain and that I am commenting on it when other hon. Members have not been able to see it. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health to examine the changes in the way in which maternity care is provided. Women's expectation of services has changed. Hospital stays are shorter and care is provided, as much as possible, in accessible community settings and is delivered by midwives. That report does not recommend the closure of many small maternity units, as has been rumoured in the press. It provides reference criteria to be taken into consideration when changes in maternity services are planned and will be widely welcomed by those involved in maternity services. For example, it makes it clear that issues such as access, transport, availability and choice must be taken into account in local decision-making.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), there must be a future for midwife-led units and they will continue to be a matter for local decision making. We believe strongly in a future for midwife-led care as part of reconfiguration.
As part of our response to the report, we shall examine obstetric risk assessment. Safety is always paramount for women and health professionals, but it must not be used as an excuse to return to the traditional medical model of childbirth. Pregnancy is not an illness and maternity services exist to provide care for a predominantly healthy population during a normal life

225WH
event. The vast majority of pregnancies and births are uncomplicated and best cared for in a predominantly midwife-led service.
For the minority of pregnancies and births that prove complicated, there must be access to expert medical advice. One issue covered in the report is the need for national standards for obstetric risk assessment, so that low-risk pregnancies can be consistently distinguished from high-risk pregnancies and managed accordingly in appropriate settings.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am encouraged by much of what the Minister has said. Before she finishes, will she comment on the exceptional success of the Edgware centre and on the Albany midwifery practice, which again sets a standard that could be repeated all over the country and provides the real choice and the midwifery-led service that so many of us believe in?
Yvette Cooper: I was indeed planning to comment on some of the best practice issues that hon. Members have identified. I was lucky enough to benefit from team midwifery care in Pontefract, where a small team of midwives, whom women are able to get to know, provide support in the community before the birth, during labour and after the birth. I was very impressed with the service and the support that I was given and gained huge benefits from it.
A wide variety of models is in place across the country, but continuity of care is crucial. There is a huge gap in our knowledge about how successful and effective the different models are and what the benefits are for the women who experience them. The hon. Member for Macclesfield highlighted the successful results at the Edgware birth centre and mentioned other examples as well.
We need to obtain comprehensive information about the different models that are in place. That is why we have commissioned detailed research into this issue and will report over the next year on the nature of the models of midwife care around the country, the way in which they are organised, funded and arranged and the difference that they can make to the women concerned.
Mrs. Spelman: Could I encourage the Minister to consider, as part of that research, whether midwives are being replaced by less well qualified personnel for after-care visits? I am sure that, like me, she benefited from the midwife calling after the birth. I understand that there is a tendency for the midwife to be replaced after delivery by somebody who is less qualified.
Yvette Cooper: I shall look into that. It is not an issue that I am aware of. High-quality care in the weeks and months after the birth is important, partly to prevent post-natal depression, which can have repercussions on the beginning of family life and can affect children's chances for many years to come. The research is being done by the national perinatal epidemiology unit to inform our development and our ability to spread best practice across the country and ensure that it is evidence-based.
Hon. Members also asked about midwife staffing. Maintaining and developing excellent midwifery services is at the heart of our agenda. The national
226WH
recruitment, retention and vacancy survey, which we published in September last year, showed that only 2 per cent. of midwifery posts—some 370—have been vacant for three months or more, although there are variations across the country. We shall work closely with the trusts that are under pressure to address the difficulties, but we are making progress.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to midwifery training. I find her remarks slightly surprising. The 28 per cent. cut in the number of nursing and midwifery training places between 1992 and 1995 was felt throughout the NHS. I am pleased to report that the Government-funded expansion in training places during the past two years—some £50 million was involved by the end of last year—has meant that applications for midwifery training have risen by 50 per cent.
As a result of our national recruitment exercise, last year more than 550 midwives contacted NHS employers about returning to work. Since this year's campaign was launched on 28 February, more than 6,000 calls have been received from people who are interested in midwifery, including more than 120 calls from qualified midwives who are interested in returning to the NHS. We need to continue with that important effort and to resolve the concerns that hon. Members raised this morning about career progression.
"Making a Difference" sets out the Government's strategic vision for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. That strategy will ensure that midwives benefit from better support and that modern, flexible, family-friendly employment practices are promoted. Many midwives have family responsibilities, and introducing family-friendly employment practices into the NHS will make a difference to recruitment and retention.
Dr. Brand: Will the Minister explain what the minimum grade for a qualified midwife should be in the present system?
Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members asked important questions about the progression of midwives' careers. We are currently appointing the first midwifery consultants—the most experienced and expert practitioners are being appointed to those important midwifery positions. The establishment of those posts will extend the clinical career structure, which will encourage practitioners who might otherwise have gone into management to remain in practice and to do what they came into midwifery and nursing to do.
"Changing Childbirth" was mentioned earlier. In the few minutes that remain, I want to discuss the way in which we have extended that approach. "Changing Childbirth" changed the scene dramatically, but we cannot stand still. One of the most important ways in which we can extend its values is to tackle inequalities across the country. In the United Kingdom, the poorer one is, the less healthy one is likely to be. Life expectancy at birth for a baby boy is about five years less in social classes 4 and 5 than it is for baby boys with professional parents. We are determined to tackle such differences, which can have an effect at the start of a child's life or in the womb.
Our debate has progressed, and we now need to build on "Changing Childbirth" and to take steps to deal with inequalities in maternity care. Drug misuse in pregnancy

227WH
needs to be tackled. The number of women who misuse drugs has increased considerably during the past 30 years, and many of those women are in their childbearing years. Pregnancy can act as a catalyst for change, and it is vital for the mother and the baby that pregnant drug misusers have proper access to support from appropriate services. Earlier this month, the Department of Health published guidelines on clinical management, which include best practice for managing pregnant drug misusers.
Some innovative services have been established, including a project in Sheffield for pregnant mothers who are addicted to heroin. The project has established a coordinated approach that includes GPs and a central clinic that offers quick access to the usual primary care services and to specialist drug services.
Women who smoke and who are pregnant constitute another priority area. Each year, more than 400 babies are stillborn or die soon after birth because the mother smoked. Smoking during pregnancy is associated with health inequalities.
The hon. Member for Meriden asked about low birth weight. That is part of our concern about health inequalities because low birth weight is linked to low income and to deprivation. The sure start programmes will examine the matter across the country. Those programmes will provide £450 million over three years across England to give support to the children and families who are most in need. That must involve support for maternity services, including better support during the weeks and months immediately following the birth of the baby—as the hon. Member for Meriden said—and examination of issues surrounding post-natal nutrition and support for the mother and baby.
There is much excellent practice across the country; we need to build on that and to tackle variations in maternity care. Like hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that midwife care must lie at the centre of that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Student Nurses
12.30 pm
Jackie Ballard: Last week there was an article in my regional daily newspaper about flying angels—nurses recruited from the Philippines to ease the national health service staffing crisis in the west country, which is not the only region to suffer from the problem. At the heart of the crisis is low pay for student nurses, which has led to a shortfall in recruitment and a 25 per cent. drop-out rate from many courses.
The issue was highlighted last month, when student nurses—I was pleased to see several from my constituency—lobbied Members of Parliament. Because of my concern about what I was told by constituents at the lobby, I was fortunate enough to secure this debate to draw the Government's attention to the situation. I look forward to hearing what the Minister plans to do about it.
There is currently a confusing three-tier system of funding for student nurses. That was the subject of early-day motion 569, which has so far attracted 70 signatures. As hon. Members will appreciate, they cannot all be the signatures of Liberal Democrat Members. The three-tier system has the following structure: first, those who are seconded on a salary from their trust; secondly, those who are on diploma courses, who receive a Department of Health bursary; and thirdly, those who are taking degrees, receive means-tested bursaries and are eligible for student loans. The Department apparently recognises the funding problem for the latter two groups, because it now encourages more trusts to second health care assistants to nurse education on a salary. So far, 1,000 students have taken up that offer. They retain supernumerary status on the wards.
One of the student nurses who came to see me had previously been a health care assistant on a low income, during which time she had been entitled to family credit. She is now a bursary nursing student, and has no entitlement to family credit and no help with child care costs. She is working harder than she did as a health care assistant, with much longer hours, and is financially worse off. How long does the Minister think that she and others like her can put up with the pressure for the sake of a long-term investment in her career and in the NHS?
Another student wrote to me to say:
The nursing course which I am on requires me to squeeze 4,600 hours of learning into 3 years. During the period when all other students are on holiday we are studying or on clinical placements. My friends who are taking other university degrees or diplomas have nearly 3 months holiday in the summer, I get 3 weeks. During this time I will be revising for exams and working extra shifts as an HCA to make up a wage large enough to live on. On my days off I work as a care assistant. I have no choice but to do this in order to pay my bills and be able to live. The Government states that nobody should live in poverty, £4,500 a year sounds like poverty to me!
If nursing students had kept their right to a nationally negotiated salary when Project 2000 started, they would now be earning about £10,000 a year—double the current bursary. Student poverty is not the only reason that student nurses drop out of courses, but it is one of the reasons most commonly given. That poverty is caused not only by low income, but by high costs—

229WH
especially in rural areas such as my constituency. For example, student nurses told me that the NHS Executive has recently changed its policy on reimbursing travel expenses to clinical placements. That has caused a great deal of confusion. One student said that she often spends £30 a week on petrol to get to her placements. That money comes out of her standard bursary.
Unison and many student nurses would like to see a return to salaried student status. They believe that it would reduce the drop-out rate and aid recruitment, and that it would increase loyalty to the NHS. The Minister is probably aware that the Royal College of Nursing takes a different view. It would prefer bursaries to be increased. It fears that students would lose their supernumerary status if they were salaried. It says that students used to be used as cheap labour and that they had little time to learn, which was why Project 2000 was implemented.
Whatever the disagreement between the unions and students on the best way forward, they all agree that the Prime Minister will not be able to deliver his promised 10,000 new nurses while the funding to support students is so low. Many nursing and midwifery students face financial hardship. They suffer more hardship than most other students because many are mature students with family responsibilities. One third of nursing and midwifery students are more than 25 years old, one third are married or have partners and a quarter of them have dependent children.
At the very least, those students need higher bursaries. They should be reimbursed for the cost of travelling to clinical placements. Will the Minister clarify the position on reimbursement? Students—especially those with child care responsibilities—need access to social security benefits. I hope that the Government agree that it is a serious problem. They will not achieve their aim of recruiting more nurses into the NHS if it is not solved. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of the way forward.
12.36 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on her success in the ballot. She chose to raise the matter of maintenance for student nurses, an essential group of people who help to deliver on the Government's plans to modernise the NHS and to improve patient care—objectives that the hon. Lady supports.
I shall put the matter in its proper context. In the financial year 2000–01, the NHS will support about 50,000 nursing and midwifery students—about 45,000 diploma-level students and about 5,000 degree-level students. The average bursary is about £5,000 a year for diploma-level students and £2,100 a year for those studying at degree level. Additional allowances are provided for some older students, for some single parents and for those with dependants. The hon. Lady drew attention to each of those three groups. An additional allowance of £590 a year is payable to older students—those aged 26 and over—and a single-parent addition of nearly £900 a year and a dependants'
230WH
allowance of between about £1,700 and about £3,000 a year are payable, depending on the number and age of dependants. The hon. Lady was particularly concerned about student nurses who had dependants. The scheme allows additional support for them.
This year, we shall spend well over £200 million on bursaries and almost £700 million on all aspects of nursing and midwifery training, of which about £500 million will be spent on pre-registration training. By anyone's reckoning, that is a substantial package of support. We recognise, however, that we need to increase the number of staff to match the expansion in services to be provided by the new NHS. We have already achieved a great deal. The latest annual work force figures show that 5,500 more nurses are working in the NHS this year than just over a year ago.
The hon. Lady referred to a crisis in nursing. We need to put the matter in context. As part of our plans to expand services and improve patient care, we are expanding the number of nurse training places by 6,000 and reversing the cuts made by the previous Government. I am sure that the hon. Lady would welcome that. Last year, more than 15,000 student nurses began training—the highest number to do so for six years. If the previous Government had matched that commitment to nurse training during their last five years in office, more than 14,000 extra nurses could be working on the wards. Sadly, that is not the case.
Jackie Ballard: I do not dispute the numbers of people who have been attracted to nursing courses, but will the Minister comment on the drop-out rate? He may have been planning to deal with that point, about which I asked a parliamentary question some time ago. The drop-out figures for the year in which the 15,000 people began training are not yet available.
Mr. Hutton: I think that that is the case, and I shall comment further on the matter in a moment. It is, however, important to be aware of the whole story. We accept that there are legitimate concerns and I know that the hon. Lady referred to them, but I want to try to set the whole picture of student nurse training in the right context.
As a result of the additional investment that we are making in the NHS, we shall be able to provide up to 15,000 more nurses to care for patients on the wards. Of course, it takes three years to train a nurse, so it will take time to reverse the previous Government's complacency and underinvestment in the National Health Service. However, more students are already embarking on the training that will deliver on this Government's commitment to improved patient care. The hon. Lady may be interested to know that the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service has recently released figures that reveal a 24 per cent. increase in people starting nursing degree courses this year. Strong indications suggest that people are willing and prepared to embark on this important career. The 24 per cent. increase is the second highest increase for any degree choice starting in the 1999–2000 academic year. The end-year figures from the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service show that, last year, the number of applicants for nursing and midwifery diploma courses rose by 73 per cent. to more than 32,000 people. The number of students taking up diploma courses has also risen by 18 per cent.

231WH
Those are positive indications that we are at long last starting to turn a corner in recruiting these key workers into the National Health Service. They demonstrate our commitment to nurses as key to the delivery of our modernisation plans and to tackling nursing shortages. Our substantial investment in non-medical training, which amounts to some £1 billion in the current financial year, is helping us to turn the corner on recruiting nurses to the national health service.
The hon. Lady may like to know that her local education consortium in Somerset is planning to invest some £44 million in training in this financial year. That is a significant investment in the future of the national health service in her part of the country.
A new NHS careers service is also helping to feed more students into nurse training. The service was launched in April 1999 and initially covers nurses, health visitors and midwives. It uses modern technology to provide an inquirer-led service that is both accessible and objective. A call centre operation offers provision for simple inquiries for help and information and for more detailed inquiries dealt with by professional advisers. It handles about 1,000 calls a week.
Another key part of our recruitment and retention strategy is pay modernisation. For the second year running, the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body, this time for 2000–01. That will mean an increase in basic pay of at least 3.4 per cent. for all nurses., and some groups of staff will receive substantially more. After years in which pay rises were staged, it is right that the awards should now be paid in full. Together with last year's award, we have provided nurses who are completing their training with a greater increase in pay in real terms than they have received at any time since 1987–88. Starting pay for newly qualified nurses in grade D will rise from £17,325 to £17,915 in inner London and from £14,400 to £14,890 in locations outside London, including the hon. Lady's constituency. Our decision to implement the award in full recognises that nurses deserve a fair pay award, especially after they coped so magnificently with the huge pressures of the winter. The pay award will also help the NHS to recruit and retain more staff, which will mean that it can treat patients more quickly.
Equally—this relates to the hon. Lady's comments—we recognise the need to provide student nurses with the support that they need throughout their training. That is why the NHS bursary scheme continues to provide more generous financial support than is available for people in mainstream higher education. In contrast to what happened under the previous Government, bursary rates are being increased again by the rate of inflation from September. That will be the third successive annual increase. We are committed to maintaining the level of the bursary. It is worth pointing out to the hon. Lady that, prior to 1998, there had been no increase in the bursary rate for three years. The Government have acted decisively to improve the bursary arrangements.
We recognise the hard work and commitment required of student nurses, who undertake an exceptionally demanding education and training programme. The hon. Lady mentioned some of the pressures on student nurses.
Jackie Ballard: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He said that the bursaries were more generous
232WH
than the funding available to other students. I am sure that he would accept that the hours of work and study required of student nurses are quite different from those of other students.
Does the Minister know the gap between the bursary level, even with dependants' allowances, for someone with one or two children, and what the same person would receive in income support, which the Government would consider the basic level that anyone would need?
Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Lady wants detailed figures and calculations, I shall have to write to her.
While the bursary scheme continues to provide effective support for students, we know that more needs to be done, particularly to tackle the difficulties experienced by some groups during the training period. We want to ensure the widest possible access to nurse training programmes, so that the future NHS work force will be diverse and fully representative of the communities that they serve. We want a system that provides adequate support in all circumstances, so that no one suffers undue financial hardship as a result of choosing to train as a nurse. That is why, as I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the NHS support package for trainee nurses, to ensure that the best support continues to be provided.
The review of student support will be wide ranging and will include examination of the different levels of support provided for diploma and degree students; the need to ensure the widest possible access to nurse training; the issue of hardship; and the interface between our support arrangements and the benefits system. We shall also consider student accommodation and travel expenses.
The enhanced level of support available to diploma students was introduced to stem the year-on-year decline in the number of young people entering nursing training. To date, to safeguard recruitment, those differences have been maintained. Student nurses, of course, face particular pressures that other groups of students do not, such as their short vacations and their extensive involvement in clinical placements. Older students, and those with dependants, can also face particular difficulties in gaining access to nurse training. For that reason, student nurses are already provided with enhanced support in comparison with other higher education students. In addition, the NHS meets student liability for tuition fee contributions in full. That is normally worth £1,025 a year. We want to continue to provide the necessary support to guarantee the future supply of those key workers.
Hon. Members, and certainly the hon. Lady, will be aware of adverse publicity in the professional press, and from some professional bodies, following clarification of the rules on travel allowances for students attending clinical placements. There have been no changes in the rules since 1 September. Any students who incur additional travel costs—when compared with their normal daily travel costs—can continue to claim them in full.
My ministerial colleagues and I are also aware of the problems affecting predominantly rural areas, such as the south-west, where the hon. Lady's constituency is

233WH
situated, and some of the smaller health care professions, in which opportunities for theoretical and practical training can be widely spread geographically. In developing our policy relating to travel expenses, our aim is to be fair to all students while safeguarding recruitment and ensuring that we do not impose an unacceptable administrative burden on students, universities or the NHS student grants unit.
I recognise in particular the importance, and the value to the NHS, of attracting mature students, single parents and those with dependants into nurse training. I am also aware of the particular difficulties faced by some of those students, many of whom have increased financial commitments, in accessing nurse education programmes. We want to find ways of ensuring the widest possible access to training in future, regardless of the individual circumstances of the student. This year's review of student support will therefore include examination of the interface between student support arrangements and the benefits system. The hon. Lady mentioned that matter.
The Department's officials are working closely with the student grants unit, education consortiums and the higher education institutions to ensure that we have in place an effective method of paying support to student nurses. Since taking on additional responsibilities in September 1999, the student grants unit has authorised payments to approximately 17,500 nursing students and those studying in the professions allied to medicine totalling about £38 million. That is a significant achievement for the unit's 25 staff. The centralisation of responsibility for the assessment and payment of bursaries at the student grants unit has been of real benefit to students, both in terms of providing a single point of contact for advice and as a way of ensuring equal treatment for all NHS-funded students.
We also want to ensure that nurses are provided with high-quality and affordable accommodation when and where they need it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently published his Green Paper on housing and announced the starter home initiative. Nurses will be helped to buy their own homes in areas where housing is costly.
The initiative will make a real difference, but we want to go further still. At the recent Royal College of Nursing conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced his appointment of John Yates as a new national nurse housing co-ordinator. His remit is to secure more affordable homes for more nurses. The accommodation will be in new high-quality developments—flats, apartments and houses—which
234WH
will help to attract still more nurses to the profession. Surplus NHS assets will be used to kick-start investment in new homes for nurses. The new co-ordinator will spearhead a range of new partnerships with housing investors, councils and the Housing Corporation, to build affordable new accommodation for nurses in high-cost areas. That might go some way to meet the hon. Lady's concerns.
We want to ensure that as many student nurses as possible complete their training and go on to work in the NHS. Attrition rates from nursing courses vary from year to year, from university to university and between the branches of nursing. Figures from the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting show a continuing downward trend in overall attrition for diploma level students. That development is welcome. Those students make up the majority of the nursing student population. The figures compare favourably with those for other forms of higher education. It is our intention to ensure that we have in place a system that provides all students with appropriate financial support throughout their training, thus, we hope, minimising the loss of students from training courses.
We also intend to strengthen nurse education; the strategy was set out in the document "Making a Difference—Strengthening the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to health and healthcare." We intend to continue to support other initiatives, such as the encouragement of former staff back into the profession. Implementation of the strategy will help to ensure the delivery of high-quality midwifery education, which will help to meet the needs of patients and clients in the 21st century. We are ensuring that nurses and midwives are properly prepared to contribute fully to a modern NHS and we are modernising career frameworks to provide more satisfying and rewarding careers.
Once qualified, today's nurses enjoy better pay and can look forward to more flexible shift patterns, improved career development and a service that rewards them fairly for taking on the additional responsibilities that we want them to undertake. Our initiatives to recruit more nurses, to encourage more former staff back into the profession, to support nurses properly throughout their training and to ensure that qualified staff are properly rewarded are clear signs of the Government's commitment to nurses, to services and, most important, to patients. Tomorrow's qualified nurses will form the backbone of the NHS and will help to deliver on the opportunity that we now have to modernise the health service and to provide the care that nurses know that their patients deserve.

Peru
12.54 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: Having returned from Peru only last Thursday with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I am pleased to welcome this short debate. Sponsored by the British branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we were invited to observe and assess the conditions of elections for the presidency and members of Congress, which took place on Sunday 9 April. We tried to observe in a spirit of neutrality and, where possible, help to make the elections in Peru fair and democratic. They held great significance for the future of democracy in that country.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry applied himself tirelessly to our responsibilities. He would agree that we were helped immeasurably by our excellent ambassador, Mr. Roger Hart, his staff at the embassy in Lima and the honorary consul in Truijillo. The visit was enjoyable and interesting, but we owe the House the same candid account that we gave to the IPU yesterday.
During the visit, it was necessary to convey to the United Kingdom our grave concerns about events as they unfolded. The ambassador made those known to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whose letter, which was placed in the public domain in Peru, was timely and helpful. My hon. Friend shared our pressing concern to see how the election of the successful candidate for President was procured and to ensure that the process was not only free and fair, but seen to be free and fair by the people of Peru and the international community. Our priority was the electoral process rather than the candidates. We had no preference in mind.
There were times when our concerns deepened. I do not disguise the anxieties that we felt and expressed about the credibility of the campaign, the counting of the votes and the declaration of the results. Sadly, our perceptions were shared by thousands of Peruvians whose peaceful demonstrations were met with tear gas as they approached the presidential palace. They almost created an atmosphere of ineffable violence. Thankfully, that was prevented because, after days of waiting for the final result, the votes were counted and no winner was declared. There was a widespread belief that a second ballot would take place between the two front-runners, Fujimori and Toledo, but I was profoundly disturbed to discover this morning that no such announcement has been made 10 days after the polls closed.
I make the plea today that when the second election takes place, as we hope it will, it is free, fair, transparent and without harassment from any quarter. However, given our experience and that of our European colleagues, that will be no mean task. Some things must be changed next time round. The European representatives from Belgium, Great Britain and the Netherlands issued a joint statement at a press conference. It said:
The state resources have been abusively and largely used to serve one candidate. The examples are countless. The Belgian delegation has specifically seen peasants being taken to a meeting of the…
candidate in trucks belonging to the State. The State television is almost a monopoly of this candidate—
Mr. Fujimori—
236WH
This situation is not acceptable since it breaks the equity among the candidates and turns the process into a non-democratic one.
The inequality between opposition groups and the existing state machine is best manifested in the significant irregularities of the constitutional tribunal in Peru, not least the fact that the President changed the constitution that he introduced to give himself an unprecedented third term, and promptly sacked three of the five judges who ruled in an appeal court that his actions were illegal. Indeed, the whole state institutional system seems to have been organised to re-elect the President. It is common knowledge that the President relies heavily on the Peruvian armed forces and some local authorities are run by the army.
Transparencia published a document that, on page after page, gives examples of abuses and irregularities. First, Toledo's name was cut from a huge number of ballot papers with scissors, so that if people wanted to vote for him, his name simply was not there. Secondly, in a region with 169,000 electors, 175,000 ballot papers were returned.
There were repeated reports of public resources that were intended for Government social programmes being used to gain support for the President's election campaign. That cannot be right. Transparencia, a body trusted by the international community, denounced what it described as "unprecedented irregularities and harassment", including attacks against its computing systems, electricity cuts and interception of telephone lines. To his credit, the ombudsman made his reservations equally clear.
We were not alone in noting—how could we have failed to do so?—the appalling imbalance on television, radio and the media, which would have been farcical had it not been so serious. Indeed, in a carefully considered paper, issued just before the election, Mr. Terence Duffy, consultant to Electoral Reform International Services, said:
Currently, Peru does possess a vigorous and extensive (if socially limited) culture of political debate expressed in some of the cable television channels such as Canal N, in the weekly magazine Caretas, and in newspapers such as El Comercio and La Republica. Regrettably, these media possess rather limited audiences, totalling no more than a few hundred thousand people, which is a gross imbalance in relation to the scale of the total Peruvian population. The Peruvian media are therefore heavily Lima-centric and possess an audience which is solely located in the highest socio-economic sectors. Regrettably, economic considerations would prevent the extensive dissemination of these media to the wider Peruvian public.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister warmly for his vigilance on these matters and ask the Government to take the initiative in ensuring European Union monitoring next time around. Even then, delivering a timely democratic election will not be easy. However, such representation and the expressed will of the international community can go a long way to achieving fair play. Never again should the election observation mission feel the need to use the expression "a culture of fear." Instead, let us hope that we can see a country with limitless potential achieve that potential in a democratic way, as I believe Peru will do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Before I call the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross),

237WH
will the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) confirm that the hon. Gentleman has his consent and that of the Minister to intervene?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
1.3 pm
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, brief though it is. However, I would have preferred to have the opportunity for a much longer debate so that we could have explored the matter in depth. It was a pleasure to share the visit with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). We did not know each other very well before we went, but we returned as firm friends. Although we did not know much about Peru before we went, we knew a fair bit about elections and we now know about Peru as a result of our visit.
We were made aware before we left of the serious problems that Peru has faced in recent years. At one stage, it had over 7,000 per cent. inflation per annum, and the country suffered from terrorism and cocaine. The last was more of a problem that Peru was exporting to the rest of the world than an internal problem, because I understand that, at one stage, it produced over 50 per cent. of the world's cocaine.
The right hon. Gentleman and I returned with a kaleidoscope of impressions, for we found a land of great contrasts the very wealthy, the very poor, heartbreaking street children, shanty towns, unemployment and modern bustling towns and cities. The people were friendly, helpful and, in many cases, very outspoken: their opinions were made plain to us from every level of society.
The right hon. Gentleman and I visited one shanty town, with a policeman or two in tow, and went into one of the huts there: they can be described in no other way. The lady of the house said that she had voted for Fujimori. Her son stated openly that he had voted for Toledo. Therefore, the people had a measure of free speech that they were not afraid to exercise, even in the presence of the police. Some of the meetings in which we took part were valuable in clarifying the conditions in the country. Given the way in which the population exercised free speech, we are both hopeful that Peru will overcome not only its economic and social problems, but its political difficulties. I want to deal now with the political problems to which my right hon. Friend referred.
It was evident to us that President Fujimori enjoys a great deal of electoral support; it would be wrong to give any other impression. People recall how desperate the nation's plight was when he first took office. He defeated, or at least suppressed, terrorism, by means that we in this country could never find acceptable, but which he and his Government considered necessary; he stopped inflation, which is now between 3 and 4 per cent. per annum; he did quite a lot on the drugs front, and is commended by the United States Government for that; he reached agreement with Chile and Ecuador on long-festering border disputes; and he has built many schools and roads, which benefit the poorest sections of society. It is a formidable list of successes, which even his most
238WH
vociferous critics commended. We found only one person who was prepared to condemn him at every turn. The downside is that when he took office, he could serve only one term of five years.
President Fujimori changed the constitution to allow two terms, and is now claiming the next term as his second, if he wins, as it is under the new constitution and his first term does not count, as it was under the old one. That was at the root of much of the opposition to him, for he is perceived by many as breaking his word and violating the constitution.
It was made plain to us that he had used doubtful methods to achieve his goal of running again and then attempting to secure election. The allegations seemed to us to be valid. Some are the ones that the right hon. Gentleman referred to; others are slightly different. The first is that the campaign against the other principal candidates was an utterly ruthless and vicious programme of vilification, which succeeded in destroying them one after the other. Mr. Toledo was a late-emerging candidate.
We were told that $3,000 made certain that any one of the tabloid newspapers published the stories, which were personally written with the headlines, the story and the editorial and then read on the street corners. The cost of television propaganda for opposition candidates was set so high that they could not afford it, and the stations that were willing to be even-handed ran into difficulties over advertising revenue from Government and other sources and increasing demands for unpaid tax.
Opposition rallies in other towns were disrupted by power cuts, land-line breakdowns, power failures to mobile phones and the closure of access roads on one pretext or another, so that folk could not get to the rallies. In addition, the poor who supported Fujimori got food aid, and 800,000 people have been promised a plot of land on which to build a house. All those are powerful inducements.
It was also made clear to us that many judges had been sacked and replaced by provisional judges; there were other official bodies where the membership simply screamed "rigging". There were questions about the accuracy of the electoral register. We were unhappy about all that and believed that it was not possible for the president to win on the first ballot, and that a second round would eventually become necessary. There is no guarantee that Fujimori would lose in the second round. He might win, even in an honest ballot, and every hon. Member knows that elections are difficult to predict.
Time does not permit me to continue, except to say that Peru is a wonderful country, full of men and women with high hopes. We wish them well and hope that the bright future that beckons will be achieved. They seem to have created a formidable array of institutions, procedures and documentation to ensure that fraud could not occur, but they left gaping holes in the process into which votes disappear and do not emerge in the same form.
Finally, I thank our ambassador and staff who were admirable in every way and looked after us very well indeed. I thank also the ambassadors of Belgium and the Netherlands, and their parliamentary representatives, whose company we enjoyed and whose report on their experiences we are happy to accept.
1.10 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): It is customary to congratulate the hon. Member who secures an Adjournment debate. In this case, more than congratulations are in order.I do not know how an Adjournment debate is secured in Peru—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister is not implying that the systems in the House echo those in Peru in any way.
Mr. Battle: I suggest that the efficiency with which we can communicate speaks volumes.
The debate is timely, as it keeps the spotlight on the situation in Peru and keeps up the pressure. That is precisely what Adjournment debates should do and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on bringing the matter to our attention while it is alive.
I congratulate them both on their valuable contribution to the IPU election monitoring mission to Peru. The telegrams that we received from our ambassador reflected the fact that they were a credit to Britain. Their work and the way in which they participated enhanced our parliamentary reputation, which is the purpose of the IPU. It was impressive to receive the feedback from the embassy as the situation unfolded. Monitoring should allow a snapshot to be taken to assess how the process is doing. The reports were on my desk during the process and they were important to enable us to react and to make a contribution to the process.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their kind words about our ambassador and his staff. The system was working at its best and the job was well done.
Outside the Chamber in Westminster Hall there is an exhibition on parliamentary work and elections. It reminds all of us why we are here and that, despite our 2,500 years of history, parliamentary democracy is not as advanced as it should be. Of the 30 elections taking place in the world this year, 16 are taking place in countries that have never had any form of democratic election. The process is relatively new and it is important that in places such as Peru, which has had democratic elections since 1980, we strengthen the process and ensure that it is not undermined. The work of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman as observers was crucial.
Throughout the Peruvian election process, the United Kingdom played a leading role in calling for free, fair and transparent elections. We financed two visits to Peru by representatives of Electoral International Reform Services. Reports of those visits highlighted worrying deficiencies in the electoral process at that time. In particular, the reports drew attention to the misuse of state resources, including food aid for party political purposes and manipulation of the media, to which reference has been made. We gave copies of those reports to the Peruvian Government and to members of the IPU delegation in Peru, and circulated them widely at international level. The spotlight was turned on events, so that matters could be improved.
240WH
We supported the activities of the office of the Peruvian ombudsman, Mr. Santistevan, in the election campaign. Our Government contributed some £20,000 to his election-monitoring mission. Since March 1998, we have contributed more than £140,000 to the cost of important work and research conducted by his office. He visited me just before the election, and we discussed that process. He expressed certain fears and spoke of the need to keep the spotlight on the election process to ensure a fair outcome. We will continue to support his activities in the run up to the second round of voting.
Last week, I met members of the inter-agency group on Peru, with whom we have strong and established ties. The group consists of a number of non-governmental organisations, including the Peru support group and Oxfam. The meeting followed an earlier exchange between members of that group and officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Latin American and Caribbean department. In other words, consultation with people who were familiar with events on the ground has been vital throughout this process.
Last week's discussion, in which I outlined our concerns about irregularities highlighted by independent observers, proved useful. As a result of that meeting and information received from those observers, I released a statement that expressed those concerns and underlined our view that a second round of voting was desirable and sensible. A copy of that statement was given to the Peruvian authorities by the British ambassador in Lima.
On the morning of 12 April, Jose Portillo, the head of the official electoral authority of the national office of electoral processes, announced that, with 97.68 per cent. of votes counted, Fujimori had 49.84 per cent. and Toledo had 40.31 per cent. He added that, with so few votes remaining, the "50 per cent. plus one" target for an outright first round victory could not be attained by any one candidate, so there would have to be a second round play-off. He explained that his office would not be able to deliver a final report on 100 per cent. of the results until official vote registration documents from polling stations abroad were received. Although a similar system operates in this country, receipt of those reports has been subject to considerable delay.
The head of the official electoral authority suggested that the national election board would have to resolve pending challenges to certain results registered in official vote registration documents. Again, such challenges occur in our elections. If there are squabbles over spoilt ballot papers and so on, agents sort them out there and then. The problem should not take long to resolve but, following the interim result of 12 April, there has been no official announcement of the final result, so a date has yet to be set for the second round. I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman about that. Although I am confident that a second round will take place, I have instructed our ambassador to raise our concerns with the Peruvian authorities and the national office for electoral processes. In other words, the ambassador will advise them to get on with it.
We played a leading role in preparing European Union statements that expressed concern about the election campaign and developments on polling day. Prior to the elections, we helped to draw up the statement by the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva on 24 March. It stated:

241WH
The EU continues to be disturbed by the decline in Peru of the rule of law and democratic institutions, including deterioration in the electoral process.
That reflects precisely the impressions that the hon. Member for East Londonderry outlined during the debate.
We also took the lead in issuing an EU statement condemning the withdrawal of Peru from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights last year. We made it clear that we did not think that that withdrawal was a good move. On 15 February, EU ambassadors, including the British ambassador in Lima, issued a public statement calling on the Peruvian authorities to take the measures necessary to implement important recommendations set out in the independent reports on the electoral process. We also initiated an EU statement on 7 April, expressing our deep concern over aspects of the election campaign and calling for procedures on polling day to be free and fair and to conform to international standards.
In the preliminary work leading up to the day of the election, we endeavoured, through the EU, to keep the international spotlight focused on the process to ensure that it was carried out correctly. It has worked imperfectly at best, but we must move on. We shall continue to work with our EU colleagues to impress on the Peruvian authorities the need to meet international standards as the second round of voting approaches. They now have an opportunity to get it right.
The Peruvian elections were discussed at the EU Latin America working party meeting on 17 April. I was asked earlier whether we could take the initiative, and I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston that it was agreed at that meeting that the EU will be sending an observer mission. As part of that, the United Kingdom again plans to send observers, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will once more be able to contribute in some way. It is important that we should keep up the good work.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry suggested that it would be better to have a wider debate on the economic, social and political context of development in Peru. I, too, would welcome that. In the short time available to us today, we have had to focus on the election process. That will be an on-going state of affairs until the second round, and we must keep a critical eye on it.
In relation to drugs, the Government are committed to tackling the global drug trafficking problem. Last week, we met President Pastrana of Colombia for an in-depth discussion about working more closely together to tackle international drug trafficking. That is a shared responsibility between producer and consumer countries. We have work to do on the streets and in the clinics here, as well as trying to eliminate production by finding alternative crops to coca and heroin.
242WH
We welcome Peru's commitment to its national drugs plan, and we are actively involved in bilateral and multilateral counter-drugs projects. In January 2000, I announced a further £500,000 contribution to a UN programme to monitor coca leaf production in Peru. Its aim is to discover the extent of production and to encourage a shift to alternative crops, providing peasant farmers with a livelihood while removing the potential for the cocaine trade.
We also keep a close eye on human rights in Peru. We continue to monitor closely the human rights situation and to raise human rights issues with the Peruvian Government whenever suitable opportunities arise. We press them whenever we consider that they are not adhering to their international obligations. For example, when they withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, we joined our European Union partners in pressing them to rejoin. In March this year, at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, we joined our EU partners in issuing a statement expressing concern at the decline in the rule of law and democratic institutions in Peru, including the deterioration in the electoral process.
In conclusion, democratic politics is a project. We try to deepen participation in democracy. As the posters outside in Westminster Hall demonstrate, there is a history to the development of democracy. Not long ago, only men could vote in Britain, and the franchise was extended to women only relatively recently. We must look for new ways of deepening our democracy, and increase the extent to which popular participation is built up from the base in all societies. We have a history of democracy dating back hundreds of years. I am proud of the fact that my colleagues have been to Peru to participate as monitors in its election process. Their work has been exemplary, and it stands as part of the tradition of campaigning to deepen democracy.
We share a common concern that, in Peru, democracy is very new and needs underpinning, supporting and encouraging; it does not need undermining. If we feel that it has been undermined, we have a duty to point that out. We look forward to the second round of voting, and we shall continue to monitor developments very closely during the electoral campaign. We shall encourage the Peruvian authorities to ensure that the conditions are in place for free, fair and transparent elections that are dominated not by fear but by the free decisions of the people participating in them. It is important for Peru to move forward democratically, not backwards. We shall continue to play a full diplomatic role in ensuring that that happens, and we are grateful to our colleagues for their work during the past few weeks.
1.26 pm
Sitting suspended.

Computer Industry
1.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The events that I am about to describe go from the bizarre to the outrageous. Anyone who did not know that what I am about to say is entirely factual could be forgiven for thinking that they were listening to the plot of a John Grisham novel. It is a story about how a small west country business has been ripped off by one of the world's largest computer companies, while others pitch in at the same time.
Before I go into detail, I should say that the story includes the all-too-familiar tale of anti-competitive behaviour, of which the Microsoft case is the best-known current example. On this occasion, however, the behaviour is aimed against a United Kingdom company. As if that were not enough, the story also includes an almost incredible example of procrastination by the United States judiciary, which damages existing and future UK innovation at the expense of the British taxpayer. As a result, a west country company, which should now be a multi-million-pound operation pouring money into further innovations and creating wealth for the entire UK, is struggling for its existence.
AllVoice Computing plc develops computerised speech recognition products. Computer speech recognition allows a person to dictate into a microphone connected to a computer, with the result that the recognised words appear on the computer screen. No less a figure than Bill Gates has said that
speech recognition is not just the future of Windows: it is the future of computers.
AllVoice did not invent speech recognition any more than Trevor Baylis, who is famous for inventing the clockwork radio, invented the radio or clockwork. However, it made the application of voice recognition a practical reality.
IBM and Dragon Systems Inc. dominate the relevant market. Dragon is a US company founded and owned by two long-serving IBM employees. When it first produced speech recognition—a facility for converting speech to text—there was no option to play back the audio on a word processor or through any other standard computer application. In effect, the dictator had no choice but to try to remember what was said in order to make corrections. Consequently, users had to interrupt their dictation and train of thought. Dragon's system required more time and effort than using a traditional dictating machine. In effect, it had invented a car that could never move out of first gear.
AllVoice's crucial innovation was to invent an error correction capability. That was done by linking the original spoken words to the text in the user's word processor, which meant that the user could freely dictate without pausing to correct the errors that inevitably occur. Furthermore, the provision of an option for storing the text with its linked audio meant that users could delegate the entire correction process if they preferred to do so. AllVoice also offered users an ability to record an audio note to accompany a delegated or deferred correction document. In 1996, the company received a prestigious Confederation of British Industry
244WH
award for those inventions. Following the release of its inventions, AllVoice's sales rose dramatically and further sales and development staff were employed.
In January 1996, IBM informed AllVoice that it was seriously considering incorporating AllVoice technology into its products under a worldwide agreement. IBM urgently requested AllVoice to submit the software, including unreleased features, to IBM's speech research and development groups in Vienna and Florida. In February 1996, AllVoice was invited to Florida, at IBM's expense, to discuss the arrangements. Of course, promises of confidentiality were made, and IBM insisted that it had no intention of writing similar software. There was an understanding that should the evaluation of the products be satisfactory, some form of partnership would be entered into. Instead, in April 1996, after a satisfactory evaluation, IBM wrote to say that it was now working on the same functions. Over the next few weeks, IBM also tried unsuccessfully to trick AllVoice into signing away its intellectual property rights.
In June 1996, having clearly decided to exploit AllVoice's products for itself, IBM announced to the world that it would be delivering a new product with similar features in the following November. Pre-announcing a product is a well-known tactic of predators, which is designed to undermine competitors who would otherwise sell competing products in the time between the announcement and the release of the predator's product.
IBM slipped up temporarily in January 1997 by introducing a low-price product that had all AllVoice's features missing, no doubt thinking by then that AllVoice would be dead in the water. AllVoice responded by adding its features back in and then undercutting IBM's more expensive version by nearly 30 per cent. Once again, AllVoice's sales climbed dramatically, so in retaliation IBM resorted to anticompetitive actions against AllVoice. As the anticompetitive actions increased, AllVoice eventually filed a formal complaint with the European Court in December 1997—case No. IV/36 824. AllVoice is waiting on the European Court to take action.
In 1996 AllVoice decided to try to produce a complete British speech system by involving unique developments in natural speech from the University of Cambridge. AllVoice had by then discovered that it could apply for patents in the United States for some of its crucial features that had been pirated. UK patents were also applied for on previously undisclosed innovations and were obtained in May 1997.
Dragon Systems also invited AllVoice to the United States to discuss collaboration and was made aware of the imminent announcement of UK patents and applications for US and worldwide patents. Dragon wanted AllVoice to disclose all its details, without a confidentiality agreement, which of course AllVoice declined. However, Dragon by then had access to the UK patent public disclosures less than one month later, and its next version included the audio playback features previously missing from all its earlier products. Needless to say, that was in clear breach of patent, but having a right of action is one thing and successfully prosecuting it through the American judicial system is something else entirely.

245WH
AllVoice was awarded its first US patent on 25 August 1998. By then, its products were being pirated on a grand scale. I understand that it is a feature of American business practices that if a little guy has a patent that he is in all probability not in a position to enforce, all the big guys get in on the act. Therefore, all attempts by AllVoice, short of litigation, to stop the breach of its patent had no effect at all. Reluctantly, AllVoice had to resort to litigation in the United States. As an official complaint is currently outstanding against IBM, a patent infringement suit was filed in Boston on 12 February 1999 in the US District Court of Massachusetts against Dragon Systems. The court case number is CA No.99-CV-10436, and the judge allocated is the honourable Douglas P. Woodlock.
At this stage, as might be expected, AllVoice filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Dragon Systems. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent further harm from being done to the patent holder until the case can be dealt with. In any judicial system where injunctive relief is available, it is the very essence of the matter that the hearing be held swiftly. AllVoice's injunction hearing was held on 26 May 1999 and, incredibly, that is where matters rest. The judge has reserved to himself whether he will grant immediate relief—immediate relief after nearly a year. I am told that even AllVoice's American lawyers, practised as they are in the vagaries of their own litigation procedures, are stunned by the delay. All attempts to get the judge to move on it have failed. It is, frankly, bizarre.
Normally such motions are decided within a month. After a month had passed without a decision, AllVoice's US attorney, Sullivan and Worcester, started to make telephone calls to the court, to inquire about the status of the opinion. After six months of such contacts and still without a decision, Sullivan and Worcester wrote formally to the court in November 1999, pointing out that the inaction was an implicit endorsement of Dragon's patent infringement and urging the court's attention to the case. When that correspondence received no response, a motion was filed the following month for a status conference. The judge denied the motion on the same day, saying that it was "unnecessary".
That is where matters rest, except that AllVoice has had to scale down its operations in an attempt to stay in business, while Dragon includes AllVoice's patented features at no extra cost. The attorneys are analysing whether other companies include the same features. That cuts out any realistic possibility of AllVoice making sales; yet it has to fund the entire litigation because, subject to what I shall say in a moment, no Government help appears to be available to it.
Lest anyone thinks that this extraordinary inactivity by the American judicial system affects only a private company and not the taxpayer, let me disabuse them at once. In 1996, AllVoice received a Department of Trade and Industry SPUR award to assist with the development of natural speech recognition systems. That project cost nearly £200,000, of which the DTI funded 30 per cent. Indeed, part of the funding has been invested in taking forward intellectual property protection through US and UK patenting.
246WH
It is difficult to describe in a few words the magnitude of what has been done to AllVoice or, indeed, the advantages that the United Kingdom would have gained had AllVoice been able to proceed. I have reminded the Chamber what Bill Gates said about speech recognition. Every computer has a keyboard, which is a cumbersome barrier for most users. Speech control and dictation is increasingly being used as a better alternative. As more innovations are made, the keyboard will, almost certainly, disappear. AllVoice's invention can, therefore, be applied to virtually every computer. The value of the speech recognition market has been estimated at £2.1 billion for this year alone. Speech recognition packages, mostly with AllVoice features, have been among the top-selling software packages in the world since January 1998. Obviously, IBM is one of the bestsellers, but even Dragon's product is said to be the 10th best-selling software application of all time.
To date, AllVoice has spent more than £275,000 on outside intellectual property costs, including patent filing fees, patent attorneys, legal counsel in the United Kingdom and the United States and, probably, other US associates. That is more than the current reduced turnover of the entire company. Patent fees continue to mount up, as do the company's legal costs. On top of that, AllVoice's has had to devote daily resources to litigation for lengthy periods, at great additional cost.
The sickening thing is that we have seen it all before. James Dyson, inventor of the bag less vacuum cleaner, has been involved in patent litigation with numerous American corporations. He has spoken of being "shafted" by the Americans, in their efforts to put him out of business. They nearly succeeded. He was saved from a considerable debt for legal fees by a fortuitous Japanese licensing arrangement. Dyson is a major UK success story, but only after going through American litigation, with the help of Japanese funds.
Even closer to home, as it were, is the case of Rodime, a Scottish-based company that made a quantum leap forward by inventing a smaller computer disc drive, which was wiped out in US patent litigation. Six hundred and twenty jobs were lost in the fight against the two main protagonists, IBM and Seagate Technology. Seagate's name will be familiar to those involved in these matters, and well it might—Seagate is Dragon's main outside investor. After years of litigation, including revelations of attempts to interfere with the US Patent Office and anti-competitive behaviour, Rodime had to settle for just $45 million gross from Seagate, a mere fraction of what it would have got if it had received a proper percentage of all the disc drives that use its invention.
The way in which American industry has rallied round to carve up AllVoice makes a pack of sharks look like a convention of nuns. It is an utter disgrace. For reasons that are impossible to fathom, the American judicial system, instead of protecting the innocent, has played into the hands of the guilty.
The Minister, as a fair-minded person, will, I am sure, be as concerned as I am. Knowing how such things go, I can predict that her civil servants are already preparing to advise her that she has no standing in the American judicial process. I hope that, if she receives that advice, she will reject it. If the big battalions, in the form of Her Majesty's Government, will not intervene on AllVoice's

247WH
behalf, who will? The Government should make an approach to the US Government at the highest level-and I mean the highest level-and say that the injunctive procedures should be brought to a conclusion at once. Indeed, given the large sums of taxpayers' money that the Government have already put into AllVoice, I would like them to go further, by helping to fund the litigation that will still have to take place.
After all, Her Majesty's Government are not entirely powerless. The taxpayer helps to fund many of the manufacturing plants opened by US corporations as UK subsidiaries in areas of regional assistance. I assume that it is no coincidence that IBM has a manufacturing plant and call centre at Greenock in Scotland. Before continuing with those subsidies, or agreeing to new ones, we should insist that those corporations declare all existing official disputes publicly, as well as declaring all new ones, as they occur. The Government could make it a condition of assistance that litigation be conducted responsibly, rather than in a predatory fashion. I say that because I believe in solutions, as well as problems. The Government are better placed than I am to work out what steps they could take. What they should not do is wash their hands of the issue and say that it is all down to the American courts.
The Government should look specifically at the activities of IBM and Dragon in the United Kingdom and at how they relate to the United States. Despite the dramatic growth in the emerging speech recognition market, a number of UK firms that have invested heavily in added-value sales with IBM or Dragon speech technology have been forced out of existence. AllVoice has just completed. a project part-funded by the DTI involving automatic speech recognition over the telephone. One Department, which has seen the prototype, has calculated that AllVoice's innovation could save it more than £3 million a year. Unfortunately, the US litigation has deprived AllVoice of the funds that it should have had to turn a finished piece of development into a marketable product range. The Government must ensure that that innovation, and the savings that the UK Government could make, are not lost through US behaviour.
The Minister has an opportunity today to stand foursquare by British innovation and excellence and by our sense of decency and fair play. That is what the public would expect of the Government. I cannot imagine for one moment that the Minister will not have considerable sympathy with the matter that I have described to the Chamber today.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I thank the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for raising this issue, which is clearly of enormous concern to AllVoice and to the hon. Gentleman, who is the relevant constituency Member of Parliament. I congratulate him on giving such a full account of the company's concerns.
The hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged that I cannot comment on the details of an individual court case—it would be improper of me to do so, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the case was being heard. I also cannot give details of the contact and support that the Department of Trade and Industry offered to the
248WH
company, because that is a matter of commercial confidentiality. None the less, I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman and the company.
The hon. Gentleman discussed possible delays in proceedings in America. I have no standing whatsoever in the American judicial system. I shall ask our officials in the British embassy in Washington to establish the full details of the case and, perhaps, to seek legal advice about taking further action. I shall also ask to be given a personal report on the result of those inquiries.
It might help if I confirm that AllVoice was the beneficiary of two grants from my Department relating to speech recognition technology. In December 1996, it was awarded a grant under the SPUR-support for products under research-scheme, which has been replaced by the small firms merit award for research and technology. In November 1998, the company received a second SMART award. I understand, and the hon. Gentleman confirmed, that significant provision was made in both grants to cover the cost of protecting intellectual property rights.
Since then, Government officials have been in regular contact with the company-indeed, we have been in touch over the past few days. We are aware of the pressures that are on the company, which the hon. Gentleman described, and we have been flexible about its undertaking to exploit the research that we supported. The possibility of a further joint university project was kept open-that would involve the company in the further development of speech recognition technology.
The case that the hon. Gentleman described raises issues that are becoming increasingly important as our economy is transformed by information and communications technology. One of the most striking features of the impact of the new technologies on the economy is the speed of innovation. The Department of Trade and Industry and, more broadly, the Government are determined to ensure that industries in this country contribute fully to the development and exploitation of those new technologies. That will allow the United Kingdom to generate new companies, jobs, products and services and, ultimately, a better quality and standard of life for everyone. As part of that strategy, we support the development of ground-breaking technologies that could contribute to economic growth.
The hon. Gentleman rightly began by saying that speech recognition technology is hugely important to the development of computer technology. In particular, it opens up the possibility of creating a friendlier and more effective interface between the user and computer technology. All of us know, as users, that the current and earlier generations of computers are not easy or intuitive to use.
The United Kingdom is a leader in wireless technology. Indeed, we are currently holding the world's first auction for third generation mobile spectrum. Voice recognition technology will be critical in catching the next wave of wireless technology and ensuring that we build on our competitive edge in wireless technology to develop new businesses, new jobs and new wealth creation.
As part of that strategy we have sought to maximise the support available for UK-based firms from the European Union and we work with our European

249WH
partners at the leading edge of information society developments—for instance through the European fifth framework programme. That programme, which is funded by all member state Governments, offers a budget of about half a billion pounds each year, from which I am glad to say that last year the UK industry received some £50 million. We are helping firms to take part in that programme to ensure, not least, that they exploit the immediate funding available and then continue to benefit from it.
Through that, through the SMART programme and through EUREKA and so on, we can support not just AllVoice but many innovative, high-technology companies in the United Kingdom. However, I am pleased to say that United Kingdom firms working in speech recognition and language technology won more than £750 million from the European fifth framework programme last year. Those firms and their European partners will work on a series of projects to extend the potential of spoken human language technology for mass market e-commerce, so that users can compare and buy services and products in their own language and in the form that they prefer. The firms will also develop multilingual delivery of information from a single source, tailored to highly personalised requirements with improved quality of speech synthesis. Therefore, with our European partners, we are making significant investments to try to sustain and build further competitive advantage for the United Kingdom.
In this fast-moving and highly competitive technical environment, intellectual property rights become hugely important. The more I talk to companies at the leading edge of the knowledge-driven economy, the more I hear from them that intellectual property rights and related issues around patenting, trademark, copyright and so on are at the top of the agenda for Governments and policymakers. Certainly the episode that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted underlines the need for leading-edge companies to establish a clear and well-directed intellectual property strategy from the outset. It is not always easy, and it certainly is not cheap, to obtain the necessary specialist advice. None the less, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the risks of not securing protection for intellectual property are enormous and the returns, therefore, from investing in the protection of successful innovation are very large.
There are huge complexities as laws on copyright—generally on intellectual property—are translated from the older economy to the new. It is not always easy for lawyers and courts to see how concepts that were developed for a different world and a different set of technologies translate into the new world. I make that as a general observation and in no sense as a comment on the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she is responding. What she has said, particularly at the outset, is helpful, but will she comment on this proposition? In the case to which I referred the protection is already in place and has had to be referred to the American courts. Clearly neither she nor I can contemplate what the outcome of that litigation will be: that is a matter for the courts. We are
250WH
not discussing the result of the injunction, because it may be refused, but is she as concerned as I am that injunctive relief is outstanding and has not been decided after 10 months? Will she tell her commercial officials that such matters concern her? I refer not to the decision but to the fact that no decision has been made. That must concern her, given the existence of patents.
Ms Hewitt: I have already said that I shall ask commercial officials at the embassy to investigate the matter. I have also asked DTI officials to look into the general issues raised by the case specifically to determine whether the United States is complying fully with its obligation to enforce patents and other intellectual property rights that are set out in the World Trade Organisation agreement on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property. That is the global framework for intellectual property issues and it is essential that all Governments who have signed the agreement abide by it.
It is also important to seek greater international harmonisation of intellectual property rights, because laws differ. They differ between the United States and the United Kingdom. The Government are playing an active role in seeking globalised norms to provide a more appropriate framework for what is increasingly a global and not a national or even regional knowledge-driven economy. We shall participate in the diplomatic conference for the adoption of a patent law treaty being held in Geneva next month. If we can obtain a successful outcome to that diplomatic conference, it will establish international harmonised standards for the procedures to be followed in patent formalities. A number of cases in different parts of the world have raised concerns about the nature of patents and whether they are granted too easily in some cases and not readily enough in others. We need some harmonisation of the procedures involved in patent formalities, which, in turn, will pave the way for more substantive issues of patent law.
The wider issue, which will not be resolved simply through harmonised legal substance or even improved legal procedures, is that, because information and communications technology is moving so fast and because of the intense competitive pressures on companies to innovate quickly, there is a danger that the brilliant idea or innovation of one company or individual will be taken over by a larger, better established, more powerful company. In the end, the answer is not simply to seek proper legal protection for the innovation and the intellectual property that resides in it, but to give away as little as possible and then to maintain constant innovation and investment in research and development. There is no guarantee in such a fast-moving world that a successful innovator will stay ahead of the game. The successful innovator might be lucky and remain ahead of the competition for 18 months or two years, but will then be taken over unless a new wave of innovation is introduced. The danger is that, unless the innovator keeps moving forward, someone else might take the idea or concept and engineer an application solution without having known how the innovator had done that in the first place. That may be done better, or it may not, but the person who gets to the market first will have the advantage. That is a general observation; it is not a specific observation of the AllVoice situation.

251WH
That is a problem particularly for small companies and individual innovators who might not even have created a company or taken the idea to market. The problem is how to protect an innovation and secure intellectual property rights, and then how to introduce them and maintain the competitive advantage.
252WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Teignbridge for raising this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding co-operation between the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the NXT. [117844]

  Dr. Moonie
  No representations regarding co-operation between the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) and NXT have been addressed to DERA and I am not aware that any representations have been received elsewhere in the Department.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will estimate the sums to be spent each year on the new carriers until they enter service; [118265]

  (2) if he will estimate the annual operating costs of each of the new carriers. [118268]

  Mr. Hoon
  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. Robert Key, dated 19 April 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for estimates of the sums to be spent each year on the new carriers until they enter service and their annual operating costs. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Our estimates of annual procurement costs for the new carriers are projections of equipment costs for internal planning purposes and furthermore their disclosure could damage the competitive process. I am therefore withholding the information requested under exemptions 2 and 7a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As to operating costs, annual estimates for the support of the carriers have still to be established.
  I am able to confirm, however, that the estimated total procurement cost of the future carriers is broadly £2Bn with operating and support costs of around £3.5Bn over the life of the programme. Both these figures are at 1999 prices.

  Roll-on/Roll-off Ferries
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the basis was for his Department's statements concerning the inability of UK yards to design and build roll-on/roll-off ferries to meet his Department's known requirements. [118899]

  Mr. Hoon
  The statement in the press on 28 March attributed to an MOD spokesman was taken out of context. The Ministry of Defence press office issued a480W
  statement that day making it clear that it did not represent my view, nor that of the Ministry of Defence and that there was no reason why British shipyards should not be able to bid competitively for roll-on roll-off ferry work either in the UK or abroad.

  The Government have encouraged consortiums bidding for the MOD sealift contract to look to UK shipyards. Bids are still being considered and we expect a decision to be taken in the late spring.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the President of the Western European Union; and what issues were discussed. [119589]

  Mr. Hoon
  The "Presidency" of the Western European Union is currently held by Portugal, who also currently hold the Presidency of the European Union. I have met my Portuguese counterpart in his EU capacity where we discussed future arrangements for European Defence—but we have not met in his WEU capacity.

  The senior appointment in the WEU, that of the Secretary General, is held by Javier Solana, who is also currently the High Representative for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. I have met with Snr. Solana in his EU capacity where we discussed future arrangements for European Defence—but have not met him in his purely WEU capacity.

  I have not yet met the President of the Western European Union Assembly, Klaus Bühler.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 2000–01. [120180]

  Mr. Spellar
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for the financial year 2000–01. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it was formed in 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of Customer Service
  The majority of the Agency's business is covered by Service Level Agreements with customers, which set out the targets for timeliness and quality of work. For those parts of the business where Service Level Agreements are not appropriate, project agreements are in place. The Agency is committed to continuous improvement in the range and quality of the services it provides to customers. Key targets are:

  a. To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in Service Level Agreements and project agreements.

  b. To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying they are at least satisfied with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  c. To have at least 25 per cent. of customers who received DASA services in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 report an improvement in services provided in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey.

  Efficiency and Quality
  The Agency plans to make efficiency savings in 2000–01 as well as continuing to meet the additional demands placed upon it by new Departmental studies and initiatives. DASA is part of the Government Statistical Service and will play its part in

  481W
  implementing "National Statistics"—the Government's policy on improving the integrity, quality and freedom from political interference of official statistics. Key targets are:

  a. To make all of DASA's unclassified National Statistics publications available on the MOD Intranet and the DASA internet websites.

  b. To conduct a review of the production and publication of armed forces and MOD civilian personnel statistics against National Statistics quality standards.

  c. To deliver efficiency savings with a value of 2.2 per cent. of the initial running cost allocation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 17 to 18 April; and if he will make a statement. [119918]

  Ms Quin
  I represented the UK at the Agriculture Council meeting in Luxembourg on 17 April.

  The Council reached political agreement by qualified majority (only Denmark expressing dissent) on a Community wide system of rules for the compulsory labelling of beef. The first stage of the scheme—providing for most beef sold to consumers to show the member state where it was slaughtered and cut/deboned and the approval numbers of the relevant establishments—should come into effect on 1 September 2000. The second stage, coming into effect on 1 January 2002, will additionally require labelling by reference to country of origin. I welcomed this agreement which will ensure British consumers can look forward to clearer, more informative labelling on beef. The agreement will now be put to the European Parliament for its consideration with a view to adoption of a Regulation before 1 September.

  Commissioner Franz Fischler reported the latest developments in the WTO agriculture negotiations in Geneva. Along with many other Ministers, I welcomed the start of negotiations and encouraged the Commission to continue its efforts to facilitate the launch of a new Round of comprehensive trade negotiations and to continue pursuing a constructive line in the agriculture negotiations in accordance with the Council mandate agreed last autumn.

  Under Other Business, I raised concerns about the impact on British millers of the operation of a WTO concession permitting the import of maize from third countries into Spain and Portugal at reduced duty rates. Originally intended to cover maize for animal feed, an increasing proportion was being imported as flint maize which is used for processing into breakfast cereals. This was distorting the single market to the detriment of millers in the UK and other northern member states. Commissioner Fischler undertook to try to resolve this problem with the main exporting countries in time for the next marketing year.

  Organic Food
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research assistance his Department gives to the(a) organic and (b) biotechnology sectors to help them establish the safety of their products. [118582]
  482W
  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply, as responsibility for food safety and standards matters has now passed to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which reports to Parliament through Health Ministers.

  The FSA funds extensive independent research programmes to support and further its aim of protecting public health from risks which could arise from the consumption of food. The results of these are made widely available to all sectors of the food industry via scientific literature, and from the agency on request, to assist them in ensuring that the food that they are supplying does not pose an unacceptable risk to health. The availability of the results is also publicised in the Agency's Food Safety Information Bulletin when the work has been completed.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Factory Inspections
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many factory inspection visits on average(a) a principal inspector of health and safety and (b) a qualified inspector of health and safety, in a field office of the Field Operations Directorate of the Health and Safety Executive made in the last financial year. [118408]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested cannot be produced at this time, because full-year data on inspectors' work for the year ended 31 March 2000 are not yet available and HSE's recording system does not make any distinction between factory inspection visits and inspection visits to other types of premises by Field Operations Directorate Inspections.

  In 1998–99 Field Operations Directorate inspectors carried out the number of inspection contacts shown in the following table.

  The average number of inspection contacts completed, in 1998–99, by HSE Field Operations Directorate inspectors in operations groups

  Number

  Principal inspector

  33

  Qualified inspector

  160

  Gas Safety Review
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Review of Gas Safety will be published. [118904]

  Mr. Meacher
  I anticipate receiving the findings and conclusions of the Health and Safety Commission on its review of gas safety in the summer. These findings will be publicised thereafter. Consequential legislative changes would be subject to the Commission's normal consultative process.

  Canals
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which canal structures will be affected by British Waterways restoration plans. [119097]
  483W
  Mr. Mullin
  British Waterways have a number of restoration projects in hand, each of which may affect canal structures. The hon. Member may wish to write to my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for Inland Waterways if there are specific plans of concern to him.

  Trunk Road Network
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the 10 largest urban areas by population in England which are more than six miles distant from a trunk road. [119180]

  Mr. Hill
  The list is as follows (in descending order of population):

  Southend-on-sea/Raleigh/Shoeburyness

  Margate/Ramsgate/Broadstairs

  Basildon

  Torquay/Paignton

  Harrogate

  Weymouth

  Clacton

  Canvey Island

  Braintree

  Bridlington.

  In the July 1998 paper, "A new deal for trunk roads in England", the Government announced their intention to transfer to local authorities responsibility for approximately 40 per cent. of the current trunk road network. When implemented, this will increase the number of urban areas more than six miles distant from a trunk road.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he provided to his Japanese counterpart in respect of British Nuclear Fuels during his meeting in Japan on 8 and 9 April; if he will place in the Library copies of the documentation given to Japanese authorities on MOX plutonium fuel in connection with the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting. [119136]

  Mr. Prescott
  I was in Japan to attend the G8 Environment Ministers meeting at Otsu from Friday 7 April to Sunday 9 April, and I am placing a copy of the communiquéissued at the end of the meeting in the House of Commons Library. There was no discussion of British Nuclear Fuels during this meeting.

  After the G8 meeting, I travelled to Tokyo and met the new Japanese Prime Minister Mori on 10 April. I expressed the UK Government's regret at the problems recently caused by BNFL and assured him that the Government would give the highest priority to sorting these out.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119506]
  484W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department at column 509W.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the data matching activities of(a) the Audit Commission and (b) local authorities in respect of benefit fraud with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998; what representations he or the Commission have received on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [119526]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is the responsibility of the independent Audit Commission and local authorities to ensure that their data-matching activities conform to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Commission's legal advice is that the data-matching techniques, which it uses with local authorities, do so conform, and it is continuing discussions on these techniques and their implications with the Information Commissioner.

  We are not aware of any representations about the Human Rights Act and the data-matching activities of the Audit Commission or local authorities.

  Sewage Treatment Facilities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the operation of legislation to ensure that water companies do not save costs by switching off sewage treatment facilities at the risk of increasing pollution levels in coastal waters. [119580]

  Mr. Mullin
  Legislation provides powers for the Environment Agency to set conditions in consents for water company discharges so that necessary water quality standards are met. Where disinfection processes are in place, the Environment Agency requires disinfection over the whole year except where there are no clear benefits to ecological or human interests. The Environment Agency has powers to prosecute water companies in breach of consent conditions.

  Old Vehicles
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to restrict the use of vehicles over 10 years old on British roads. [119755]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department has no plans to restrict the use of vehicles over 10 years old.

  Driving Test
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include motorway driving in the driving test. [119756]

  Mr. Hill
  We have no plans to include motorway driving in the driving test. We include high-speed dual carriageways in driving test routes wherever possible, which require similar driving skills to motorways, and we examine knowledge of motorway rules in the theory test.
  485W
  The introduction of moving image hazard perception testing, in 2002, will offer us a further opportunity to test the skills needed to drive safely on motorways.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he has set targets for the Highways Agency for noise reduction and the use of noise-reducing surfaces; and if he will make a statement; [119760]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy on reducing noise from trunk roads and motorways. [119761]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government set out their policy towards dealing with the problems of traffic noise on roads managed by the Highways Agency in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". In addition to the increased use of quieter surfaces both for new roads and for roads needing maintenance, we proposed to set aside a budget for the Highways Agency to provide additional mitigation in the worst cases where no other action was being taken. The budget and qualifying criteria were announced on 22 March 1999 and a letter from the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency listing locations which would be subject to a detailed investigation of feasible measures was published in the 11 November 1999,Official Report, columns 681–83.

  For 2000–01, the Government have set a target for the Highways Agency to treat 10 sites from this list. Targets for future years will be reviewed in the light of progress.

  I have not set any target for the use of quieter road surfaces in general because the Highways Agency routinely considers their use in all cases where a trunk road needs to be re-surfaced. The Highways Agency currently uses quieter materials for approximately 80 per cent. of the total amount of resurfacing undertaken.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the compensation payments made to residents in the proximity of the M25 for excessive road noise. [119762]

  Mr. Hill
  Details of individual settlements between the Highways Agency and the claimants are confidential. However, the overall compensation paid since 1 January 1995 to date under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for noise and other factors is £24,213,027.

  It is not possible to provide information on payments prior to this date as our records are not specific to schemes.

  French Lorry Drivers' Dispute
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all claims relating to the French lorry drivers' dispute in 1997 have been settled. [119740]

  Mr. Hill
  We are not aware of any claims in respect of disputes in 1997. We understand, however, that all claims in respect of the lengthy blockade in November 1996 have now been processed by the French authorities, and payment agreed in the case of all eligible claims. This has been achieved after sustained effort over many months by staff in the Department and in the British Embassy in Paris.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the consultation paper on the management and disposal of nuclear waste referred to in the Government's response of October 1999 to the Lords Science and Technology Committee report on Management of Nuclear Waste (HL 41, 1998–99); and if he will make a statement. [119727]

  Mr. Meacher
  We aim to publish the consultation paper on the management of radioactive waste when it is ready.

  The consultation paper will set out the procedures the Government intend to follow in order to choose and implement its radioactive waste management policy. It will not endorse deep disposal or any other management option.

  Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Deprivation Index
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the representations he has received from local authorities which were in favour of the new proposals on the index of local deprivation were from(a) district councils, (b) county councils and (c) metropolitan authorities; and if he will make a statement. [120030]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The responses which were in favour of the new proposals were from the following: 24 district councils; 20 county councils; 12 metropolitan authorities outside London; five London boroughs; eight unitary authorities and 20 'others' including several development partnerships.

  Road Accidents (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road(a) fatalities and (b) personal injury accidents took place in Greater London during 1999. [119809]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested on personal injury accidents is not available. However, provisional estimates of road casualties for the first nine months of 1999 are given in the table.

  Casualties in road accidents in Greater London January-September 1999

  Severity of casualty

  Number (provisional)

  Fatal

  196

  Seriously injured

  4,224

  Slightly injured

  29,056

  Total

  33,476

  Source:

  London Accident Analysis Unit

  Concessionary Travel Passes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the use of concessionary travel passes for retired people which can be used throughout the UK; and if he will make a statement. [119810]
  487W
  Mr. Hill
  Both the train operating companies and the National Express coach company already offer commercial discount cards for nation-wide travel by senior citizens. I would be interested in similar proposals from the bus industry.

  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; the associated bus pass will be free of charge. These measures will bring benefit to many pensioners and will be particularly welcome in areas where at present the local authority offers a less generous concessionary fare scheme, or none at all.

  At present schemes often cover only the area of the issuing local authority, but it will remain possible for local authorities to arrange travel outside their own area, as many do.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with leasehold reform. [119805]

  Mr. Mullin
  As was announced in the Gracious Speech given on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 4–7, we intend to publish a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced the publication of a summary of the main leasehold measures we intend to include in the draft Bill on 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 345W. Copies were placed in the Library. Following consultation on the draft Bill, we intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that mobile phone companies and local authorities undertake adequate public consultation before the erection of mobile phone masts. [119463]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is important that the public has an opportunity to comment on the proposed installation of telecommunications masts. Where it is proposed to erect a mast subject to a planning application, the statutory requirement for a local authority to publicise any planning application will apply. In respect of mast development carried out under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO), under the 42 day prior approval procedure, the operator is required to erect a site notice to publicise the development proposed, in order to provide the public with a clear opportunity to comment to the local planning authority on the siting and appearance of the proposed mast.

  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
  488W
  is expected to finalise its report shortly. The Government will consider the Group's recommendations and issue a response.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of Railtrack's figure for the investment needed to improve rail services and safety in Britain. [119458]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have made clear that substantial sums will have to be invested in railway infrastructure to deliver the increased rail capacity and quality needed for the future. We will be publishing in the summer our 10-year plan for transport, which will set out indicative plans for transport expenditure, building on the advice of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, and responses of the Rail Regulator and others to Railtrack's 2000 Network Management Statement.

  The process of reviewing the 2000 Network Management Statement is carried out by the Rail Regulator. He announced on 30 March 2000 that he would be consulting with the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, PTEs and train operators, to determine in particular whether the plans meet their needs and aspirations.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack regarding future levels of investment in railways, with particular reference to the West Coast Main Line and railways in the North-west. [119459]

  Mr. Hill
  A group consisting of officials from the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA), the Office of the Rail Regulator, Railtrack and the train operators involved in the West Coast Main Line, both passenger and freight, has been established and meets regularly. The sSRA reports to Ministers as necessary. Railtrack has confirmed that it is on course to meet its contractual commitments to Virgin in 2002 and 2005. The Rail Regulator has published a draft final order he proposes to make, which would require Railtrack to produce robust plans which demonstrate that it can in fact do so, and that it can meet the reasonable requirements of other train operators and funders including the sSRA. The sSRA has input into all development plans for the railways via consultation with Railtrack, both on a formal and, on an informal basis.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussion he has had with Railtrack since the Paddington disaster with regard to reducing the possibility of signals 109 Ladbroke Grove, S862 Swinton Manchester, MP503 Ordsall Lane Manchester, MP324 Ardwick Junction Manchester Piccadilly, MP332 Ardwick Junction, North Manchester and MP64 Lonsight Manchester being passed at danger; and what action has been taken. [119460]

  Mr. Hill
  After the accident at Ladbroke Grove, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued one prohibition notice and two improvement notices to Railtrack requiring them to reduce the risk of the signals listed being passed at danger. Since then, the HSE has been in detailed discussion with Railtrack about these signals. As a result, Railtrack has been given until 22 May 2000 to implement an action plan for reducing the risk of these signals being passed at danger.
  489W
  In addition, one of the measures agreed at the Deputy Prime Minister's Rail Safety Summit last November was a common standard for reporting and investigating signals passed at danger (SPADs) which has been in operation since December 1999. It was also announced that Railtrack will aim to complete the fitting of the train protection and warning system (TPWS) on its infrastructure (12,000 sites) by the end of 2002, a year earlier than planned, beginning with the highest risk locations. Train operators have committed to fit 33 per cent. of trains with TPWS by the end of 2001, 75 per cent. of trains by the end of 2002 and all trains by the end of 2003.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for jythe Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119546]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The DETR's policy for its main website complies with the Cabinet Office's framework policy and guidelines for the use, management and design of public sector websites. These form part of the e-government strategy (formerly known as the Government corporate IT strategy). Copies of this document are available from the Library of the House.

  DETR's main website has not so far carried any advertising nor been sponsored by companies. Were we to accept sponsorship, it would be subject to the policy for other forms of publication, which is in line with the Cabinet Office note "Guidance for Departments on Sponsorship", May 1997. Copies of this document are also available from the Library of the House.

  Above all, acknowledgement of any sponsorship would not imply any endorsement of the sponsor's goods or services, nor be open to misinterpretation as influencing policy making.

  It will take longer to gather information requested in respect of the Department's Agencies and NDPBs. I will write to the hon. Member with this information and place a copy in the Library in due course.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since 1998(a) the sleeping cars and (b) the rest of the Royal Train have been hired out to (i) Government departments and (ii) commercial undertakings; and if he will make a statement. [119852]

  Mr. Hill
  The Train has been used once for official Government business since 1998—for a function hosted by Mrs. Blair for the wives of the G8 Heads of Government on 16 May 1998. The Train, including sleeping cars, has not been hired out to any commercial 490W
  undertakings during this period. The Train is available for use by Government departments and appropriate organisations, on a reimbursable basis.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties in the Ribble Valley, Pendle, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Rossendale and Hyndburn are in council tax bands(a) A and (b) H; and what percentage of the total number of properties in each council area this represents. [119849]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table. The number of dwellings in bands A and H are as shown on the Valuation List for the authority on 15 October 1999.

  Band A

  Band H

  Number

  % of total

  Number

  % of total

  Ribble Valley

  3,022

  13.2

  181

  0.8

  Pendle

  24,427

  64.8

  48

  0.1

  Blackburn with Darwen

  36,692

  62.8

  63

  0.1

  Burnley

  26,184

  64.5

  17

  0.04

  Rossendale

  15,613

  54.0

  39

  0.1

  Hyndburn

  21,624

  61.3

  12

  0.03

  Car Number Plates
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to enable the Union Flag to be printed on car number plates; and if he will make a statement. [119774]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 30 March, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses, on our proposed number plate regulations. These included the optional display of the GB national identifier on a blue background on the left edge of the plate, an option which dispenses with the need for "GB sticker" when travelling in Europe. We have no plans for other symbols to be included on number plates. People are free to decorate their vehicles with such flags, designs or messages they choose, providing they do not obscure their vision or the number plate.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria water authorities may use when calculating water charges; and if he will make a statement. [119772]

  Mr. Mullin
  Except as provided otherwise, a water company, under section 142 of the Water Industry Act 1991, may fix charges by reference to such matters and may adopt such methods and principles for the calculation and imposition of the charges as appear to them to be appropriate. This discretion is governed by specific conditions set by the Director General of Water Services in companies' instruments of appointment, notably the price limits and a prohibition on undue discrimination and undue preference in charging.
  491W
  Provisions of the Water Industry Act 1999 now in force introduce additional restrictions on water companies' powers to set charges. All household charges must now be set out in charges schemes approved by the Director General, who must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The 1999 Act also introduced new rights of choice for household customers in their method of charging and regulations protecting vulnerable groups against high measured charges. The Secretary of State's guidance, the texts of regulations made under the 1999 Act and other background on water charging policy is set out in "Water Industry Act 1999—Delivering the Government's Objectives" published on 3 February, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Fuel (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with British Nuclear Fuels in respect of its plans to increase the maximum speed of transportation of spent nuclear fuels on the railways. [120043]

  Mr. Hill
  Discussions take place between my officials and representatives of BNFL on a regular basis. On several of these occasions over the past few years the issue of the maximum speed of transportation of spent nuclear fuels on the railways has been raised. To date there has been no change in the speed limit, and such a change would only be permitted after agreement by all the appropriate safety regulators.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consents are necessary from his and other Government Departments and agencies for the construction and operation of an(a) onshore and (b) offshore wind farm; and if he will make a statement. [119924]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The position is:

  (a) An onshore wind farm needs planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  (b) An offshore wind farm requires either an Order made by the relevant Secretary of State under the Transport and Works Act 1992, or navigation consent under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 and a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 for the placing of materials in the sea or on the sea-bed. Wind farms within UK waters also require a licence from the Crown Estate Commissioners as owners of the sea-bed. Wind-energy developments with a capacity greater than 50MW also require consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Drinking Water Regulations
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to revise drinking water regulations in England, following the requirement to implement the new EC Drinking Water Directive by December 2003. [120067]
  492W
  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has today issued a consultation paper setting out proposals to bring standards for drinking water supplied by English water companies into line with those set out in the new EC Drinking Water Directive. Responses are invited by 30 June 2000.

  The quality of drinking water is a vital element of public health. Its overall quality in England and Wales is very high. Of the nearly three million tests carried out on drinking water in 1998, 99.78 per cent. met the required standard. The new regulations will revise and tighten standards to take account of the latest scientific and medical advice. The most important change proposed is a reduction from 50μg/1 to 10μg/1 by 2013 in the maximum permitted concentration of lead in drinking water. This change is in accordance with the latest World Health Organisation guidelines and is introduced primarily to protect unborn children and infants. Neuro toxic effects from exposure to excessive levels of lead are known to contribute to problems in learning and behaviour and to slightly lower IQs.

  Executive Agency Targets
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the Rent Service. [120068]

  Mr. Mullin
  Key targets have been agreed for the Agency. They are included in the Agency's Business Plan, which includes management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks. Copies of the Business Plan will be placed in the Library in due course.

  The key targets for the Rent Service are:
  to increase the number of cases determined per employee by a minimum of 5 per cent. per year while reducing the cost per case by a minimum of 5 per cent. per year in real terms, with no reduction in the quality of service provided;
  to deliver Statutory performance targets in 95 per cent. of cases;
  to achieve the following customer service targets against Housing Benefit applications:
  process 80 per cent. of Determinations without an inspection within three working days,
  process 70 per cent. of Determinations with an inspection within 15 working days,
  process 80 per cent. of Pre-Tenancy Determinations within four working days,
  process 50 per cent. of Redeterminations within 15 working days;
  process 80 per cent. of Fair Rent Determinations within 40 working days;
  complete 99 per cent. of Housing Renovation Grant valuations within 40 working days.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he has set Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency for 2000–01. [120279]

  Mr. Hill
  The Agency's principal financial target for 2000–01 is to achieve a minimum contribution to the Exchequer of £1,450,000.

  Operational targets have been set to increase occupancy of the three key conference areas as follows: Churchill Auditorium to 225 days; Fleming Room to 225 days; Mountbatten Room to 225 days.
  493W
  The Agency is also being required to achieve eight new banqueting events, and has the following quality of service targets:
  overall score for quality of staff 82 per cent.
  overall score for customer satisfaction 85 per cent.
  overall score for quality of venue 78 per cent.
  overall score for value for money 70 per cent.
  the number of complaints received to be less than two per 100 events
  an average response time when answering complaints of less than four working days.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the(a) Driving Standards Agency, (b) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (c) Vehicle Certification Agency and (d) the Vehicle Inspectorate. [120280]

  Mr. Hill
  Key targets have been set for the agencies. They are included in the agencies' business plans which also include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks appropriate to the agencies' businesses. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Library in due course.

  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are to: contribute to the achievement of a 40 per cent. reduction in riders and drivers killed or seriously injured in road accidents, in the age group up to age 24 years, by 2010 (compared with an average for 1994–98) and to achieve the following customer service targets:
  85 per cent. of all customers to be satisfied with the overall level of service received from the Agency.
  95 per cent. of candidates to have obtained a theory test appointment at their preferred test centre within two weeks of their preferred date.
  The national average practical car test waiting time will be no more than six weeks.
  Keep 99.5 per cent. of all theory test appointments, and 99.5 per cent. of practical test appointments that are in place two days prior to the test appointment.
  90 per cent. of calls to booking offices will be answered by a human voice in no more than 20 seconds (following routing by the call handling system).
  Achieve a 2 per cent. return on capital employed (ROCE) on statutory activities in 2000–01;
  not increase fees for statutory activities (unless additional strategic responsibilities are placed on the Agency);
  use examiner resource efficiently by achieving an average examiner utilisation for car practical tests of 80 per cent.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to:
  make an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent.;
  achieve a cost:yield ratio of at least 2.9 to 1 on enforcement (ie recoup £2.90 for every £1 spent);
  achieve the following customer service standards;
  98 per cent. of Driving Licences issued error-free,
  98 per cent. of new Vehicle Registration Documents issued error-free,
  97 per cent. of amended Vehicle Registration Documents issued error-free,
  ensure the following document turn-round times;
  95 per cent. of Ordinary Driving Licences within 10 days,
  95 per cent. of first Provisional Licences within nine days,
  95 per cent. of Vocational Licences within eight days,
  494W
  95 per cent. of new Vehicle Registration Documents within 12 days,
  95 per cent. of amended Vehicle Registration Documents within 12 days,
  answer 94 per cent. of all telephone inquiries within 30 seconds;
  answer 96 per cent. of all written inquiries within eight days.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are to:
  achieve break-even or better on the commercial accounts while achieving at least a 6 per cent. rate of return on capital employed;
  have at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates issued error free;
  achieve a score of at least 90 per cent. on the quality and service matrix targets shown in the Plan;
  ensure that the figure for debtor days is 65 or less;
  ensure that invoices for Management System Certification work are issued within an average of 30 days after completion of the chargeable work;
  achieve Trading Fund status by 31 March 2001.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate are to:
  meet the quality and general effectiveness levels as specified in the Business Plan measures set for 2000–01;
  meet the requirements on levels and types of activity laid down in the Memorandum of Agreement on each Road Transport Enforcement Scheme as agreed with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions;
  continue to improve customer focus across VI through the implementation of initiatives in line with the Modernising Government agenda and with particular emphasis on increased advisory and educational services;
  achieve an Aggregated Cost Efficiency (ACE) index of +1 per cent.;
  break even while achieving an average 6 per cent. real rate of return on capital,
  over the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003;
  improve performance management across the business through delivery of the specified measures in the Business Plan 2000–01;
  secure the long-term development of the organisation through (a) progression of the MOT Computerisation project; (b) continued development of electronic services delivery; and, (c) a network review resulting in an updated network strategy.

  Commercial Property Leases
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the outcome of his Department's review of the property industry's Code of Practice on Commercial Property Leases; and if he will make a statement. [120069]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Research which I am publishing today shows that small business tenants still have little knowledge of property matters. I consider it essential that they should be properly informed, to enable them to get the best deals in the market rather than the standard packages still too often on offer.

  I urge the industry and professions to join Government in ensuring that small businesses, and particularly those starting in business for the first time, have access to information about property arrangements. We will be making a contribution through the new Small Business Service, but I look to the industry and the professions to play their part.

  We need to consider how Government, industry and the professions can be more proactive. It is not just a matter of providing information: we need to prompt those setting

  495W
  up in business to ask the right questions at the outset, to help them make the right choices, thus ensuring that their form of property occupation assists rather than hinders their business development.

  The research, on the impact of the Code of Practice on Commercial Property Leases since its introduction in 1995, was carried out by Reading University and was designed to see how far the Code of Practice had brought about more flexibility in the commercial property market.

  The findings show that while the Code itself has had little impact, the market is now granting much shorter leases and has become more transparent.

  I am concerned that upward-only rent reviews still predominate in longer leases, and while I welcome the report's evidence of greater flexibility, I am disappointed that the Code of Practice has not had a greater influence.

  To see if we can avoid regulating lease terms, I invite the industry and property professions to consider:
  the scope and contents of the Code of Practice;
  the arrangements for disseminating the Code and other forms of advice for tenants;
  how the market could promote alternatives to upward-only rent review clauses, ensuring that they are presented attractively while bearing the appropriate price tag; and
  how to promote a better understanding of the workings of dispute mechanisms; in particular, to encourage wider take-up of the special disputes resolution scheme for small businesses which the RICS introduced last year.

  I will be asking the industry and professions to consider these points, as they digest the Reading University report, and I will invite them to discuss them with me at a forthcoming meeting of my Department's Property Industry Forum.

  Airports (Public Safety Zone Policy)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the residual work of the Civil Aviation Authority in administering the Public Safety Zone policy will be transferred to his Department. [120070]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since 1 January 1982, the Civil Aviation Authority has, under a Memorandum of Understanding negotiated with the then Secretary of State for Trade, undertaken responsibility, on behalf of the Secretary of State, for advising local authorities on planning applications relating to sites within Public Safety Zones. The draft circular issued for consultation on 15 June 1999 contained guidance to local authorities to enable them to decide planning applications within Public Safety Zones without the need for advice from the Authority. In the light of the comments received on the draft circular, I am satisfied that I should meet the Authority's wish to discontinue its role in Public Safety Zone administration. The Authority will be terminating the Memorandum of Understanding with early effect. In the interim period before the new circular comes into effect, my Department will be willing to provide advice to local authorities in place of the Authority where this would be appropriate.

  The announcement of 15 June 1999 also referred to the establishment of Public Safety Zones at other airports for which modelling work suggested that this would be justified. In the light of the modelling work so far
  496W
  completed, Public Safety Zones will be established for Biggin Hill, Exeter, Humberside, Inverness and Plymouth airports.

  Newspapers (Recycled Content)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his negotiations with newspaper publishers to develop a voluntary agreement for increases in the levels of recycled content in newspapers; and if he will make a statement. [120297]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to be able to announce today the successful conclusion of my negotiations with the newspaper publishers. Ten years ago, the publishers entered into a voluntary agreement with the Government to increase levels of recycled fibre in newspapers. Over the last decade this has led to increases in the recycled content of newspapers from 28 per cent. to 52.4 per cent.

  Both I and the newspaper publishers acknowledge that to achieve further significant increases in recycled content will require a major addition to the recycled output from British newspaper mills. However, in anticipation that the new capacity will be forthcoming within the next two years UK publishers have agreed the following targets: 60 per cent. by the end of 2001; 65 per cent. by the end of 2003; 70 per cent. by the end of 2006.

  The newspaper publishers have said that it is their firm intention to achieve these targets but the Government recognise that there may be factors beyond their control. Progress towards these targets will, therefore, be continually monitored by the Newspaper Recycling Working Group with formal in-depth reviews carried out at each target stage. At these reviews, the following factors will be taken into account:
  the availability of additional reprocessing capacity, which is dependent on whether a decision to increase investment is reached this year;
  the growth in consumption of newsprint, which is currently about 2.5 per cent. per annum;
  the quality of the recycled newsprint available and, in particular, whether this hindered the production process significantly and damaged the product;
  any uncompetitive pricing of recycled newsprint by newsprint suppliers.

  The reviews will be on the basis of an understanding that the objective of the agreement is to achieve high and rising recycled content of UK newspapers; and the newspaper publishers have reaffirmed their commitment to continue to achieve the most stringent targets compatible with such newly arising factors which may be beyond the control of industry.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the findings of the Financial Management and Policy Review of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. [120298]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution advises Ministers on dangers to the environment, environmental issues and priorities, and ways of integrating environmental concerns and objectives with other, economic and social, objectives in order to
  497W
  achieve sustainable development. As a non-departmental public body, the Commission is subject to a financial management and policy review every five years and my Department appointed in-house consultants last January to undertake this work. The Review, which comprised two stages, is now complete. Stage 1 found that there is a continuing need for the Royal Commission to advise Government on environmental policy and sustainable development and that the Commission provided the most efficient and cost-effective means of delivering this.

  The second stage of the Review considered the performance of the Commission in greater depth, making recommendations on the Commission's relationship with Government; its strategic planning arrangements, including processes for reviewing performance and auditing impact; internal organisation and working methods, financial management, staffing and the role of the secretariat; and membership arrangements, including appointments. The overall conclusion of the Review is very positive and, though a number of recommendations are intended to enhance effectiveness, the Review commends the Commission for action which it has already taken to update and improve its working methods.

  We accept all the findings of the Review and are developing an implementation strategy for future action taking up its Recommendations. The Review is available on my Department's website www.detr.gov.uk and copies are being placed in the Library of the House. A detailed Implementation Strategy is being prepared, which will also be available on the DETR website.

  London Luton Airport
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to consider the application by EasyJet Airline Ltd. for an order under section 40 of the Airports Act 1986 designating London Luton Airport as an airport at which a cap would be imposed on the maximum amount to be levied by the airport operators by way of airport charges. [120340]

  Mr. Mullin
  As provided for in section 16 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, I have asked the Civil Aviation Authority for assistance and advice in this matter. The Authority will take representations from EasyJet and London Luton Airport Operations Ltd., and seek views from other interested parties as it sees fit. I have asked the Authority to report to me, with a recommendation, by the end of July.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policies are in place to cover the management of separated plutonium and plutonium contaminated wastes in the United Kingdom. [119133]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 April 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's policies on these materials are set out in United Kingdom Civil Nuclear Policy Including Plutonium, which was presented to the House in January 1998, and Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy Final Conclusions, Cm 2919 of July 1995, respectively.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Communications Reform White Paper
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on consultation on the Communications Reform White Paper. [120179]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I encourage anyone with ideas or thoughts on the substance of the White Paper to submit them to us, either in writing or via our e-mail address, consultation@communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk, by 23 June 2000.

  Unless contributors make it clear that they do not want their contributions to be published, we intend to place most of the material submitted to us on our website. We hope that this will generate further comment and debate as we prepare the main messages of the White Paper.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119553]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department's policy on website advertising is in accordance with that set out in the Framework policy and guidelines for the use, management and design of public sector websites, which forms part of the e-government strategy.

  My Department's policy on website sponsorship is the same as that which applies to any other form of Departmental publication.

  No advertisements have appeared on the Departmental or agency websites in the period mentioned. Nor have any website sponsorship arrangements been entered into.

  Information on the non-departmental public body sites could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the use made of the weekly Mojahed publication by(a) the terrorist group Mujaheddin Khalq Organisation of Iran and (b) the National Council of Resistance in Iran; if this publication is registered as a newspaper with the Post Office; and if he will make a statement on the contents of this publication. [119017]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government's position on both the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO) and the National Council for the Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is
  499W
  clear. We do not recognise the NCRI, of which the MKO is the dominant group. The British Government remain firmly opposed to the violence practised by the MKO.

  We understand that the Mojahed publication is registered as a newspaper with the Post Office. As long as people do not break our laws, they are free to express views with which we might profoundly disagree.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries receive BBC World Service broadcasts. [119590]

  Mr. Hain
  The BBC World Service broadcasts to all countries in the world. The latest weekly global audience figure of 151 million is based on surveys of listeners in 122 countries. There are very few places where the World Service cannot be received. But in a number of places it is difficult or impossible to measure audiences.

  India
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with his ministerial colleagues in the European Union concerning the appointment of a commission by the Indian Government relating to religious freedom in India; and if he will make a statement. [119561]

  Mr. Hain
  Officials in our High Commission in New Delhi regularly discuss human rights issues, including freedom of religion, with their EU counterparts. I also discussed rights of minorities, including religious minorities, with my Indian interlocutors during my visit there in November. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Gibraltar
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the current discussions about issues concerning Gibraltar in the European Union. [119997]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I am pleased to announce that, following extensive consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and with their support, and with the encouragement of our EU partners, the United Kingdom has successfully concluded discussions with Spain to overcome difficulties which have arisen on a number of issues within the European Union concerning Gibraltar. As a result:arrangements have been established whereby formal communications and notification of decisions between Gibraltar authorities and their counterparts in other member states under EU legislation will be conveyed through a Unit established in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. The arrangements will enable Gibraltar to derive immediate benefits in the development of its banking and insurance industries. They will unblock important measures for the development of the single market and in the Justice and Home Affairs field to the benefit of the UK and Gibraltar and prevent similar blockages in the future. The arrangements uphold the constitutional position of Gibraltar, while at the same time removing a major obstacle to the development of EU business. The arrangements are being notified to the Secretary General of the Council in Brussels together with an exchange of correspondence between the UK and Spanish
  500W
  Permanent Representatives to the EU. A copy of the exchange of correspondence and the arrangements will be placed in the Library of the House.
  the identity card issued in Gibraltar will be recognised as a valid travel document throughout the EU, following some reformatting which is proposed by the Government of Gibraltar to associate the identity card with the UK as the member state responsible for Gibraltar. The UK Permanent Representative to the EU is writing to the Permanent Representatives of all other EU member states to inform them of the proposed reformatting. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House. arrangements will be established under the Schengen Convention to enhance co-operation between the Royal Gibraltar Police and the Spanish police forces in the fight against transfrontier and other crimes in the region, as part of the Europe-wide fight against crime called for at the Tampere Special European Council last October and in keeping with Gibraltar's longstanding commitment in this respect. These arrangements have been initialled. The intention is that they will be signed by the Home Secretary and his Spanish counterpart, as required by the Schengen Convention, when the Council Decision on the UK Schengen application is adopted. A copy of the initialled text will be placed in the Library of the House.
  a revised version of the draft Council Decision on the UK's Schengen application, including the relevant addition covering Gibraltar which has hitherto been left open, will be circulated by the Presidency shortly. It will provide for Gibraltar's participation in all the provisions in which the UK participates (except the Schengen Information System and cross border surveillance). It will be submitted to the scrutiny committee.

  The Government welcome the outcome of these discussions. It represents a very good outcome for the UK, for Gibraltar and for all our EU partners. We hope that it will also help to improve the climate of dialogue and the spirit of co-operation with regard to Gibraltar between Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the appointment of the Presidential Special Representative for Human Rights in Chechnya and (b) whether Council of Europe representatives working with him will have operational freedom to investigate human rights abuses without hindrance from the Russian authorities. [119453]

  Mr. Vaz
  We accept that the appointment of Mr. Kalamanov is intended to demonstrate Russia's commitment to its human rights undertakings in Chechnya. We have supported the efforts of the Council of Europe's Secretary General to establish conditions for the attachment of CoE Representatives to Mr. Kalamanov's office which ensure that they will be able to examine and report cases of human rights violations which are brought to their attention.

  South-Eastern Europe (Stability Pact)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions donor countries have had with the countries of South Eastern Europe with respect to their role as parties to the Stability Pact. [119455]
  501W
  Mr. Vaz
  Donor countries have had numerous discussions with countries of South Eastern Europe about the Stability Pact, both multilaterally and bilaterally. The most recent multilateral meeting was the Regional Funding Conference which I attended in Brussels on 29–30 March.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place between Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia and Stability Pact donors about finance for Corridor 8. [119457]

  Mr. Vaz
  Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia discussed the question of Corridor eight most recently at a meeting of their Foreign Ministers on 24 March. We know from the summary of basic infrastructure investments prepared by the European Investment Bank for the Regional Funding Conference for South-Eastern Europe that Albania has also had discussions with the European Investment Bank and Italy about its proposals for Corridor eight. Decisions on allocating funds to particular projects in the framework of the Stability Pact are expected soon.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been committed by each significant donor to the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe; which resources have already been disbursed; and for what purpose. [119454]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Office of the Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact has not yet produced details of donor commitments. The total commitment made at the recent Regional Funding Conference for South-Eastern Europe was over 2.4 billion euros. The Office of the Special Co-ordinator is arranging a meeting to discuss commitments to individual projects.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on bilateral and multilateral initiatives with respect to(a) economic development, (b) trade and (c) organised crime and corruption in South Eastern Europe. [119456]

  Mr. Vaz
  Numerous initiatives concerning these issues have been submitted by individual countries and international financial institutions. A large number have been proposed under the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe and were tabled at the Regional Funding Conference in Brussels 29–30 March (details are on www.stabilitypact.org). The Office of the Special Co-ordinator is arranging a meeting to discuss commitments to individual projects.

  Russia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent exchanges he has had with the Russian Foreign Minister on human rights. [119504]

  Mr. Vaz
  During my right hon. Friend's visit to Moscow in February human rights were high on the agenda for talks with Acting President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov, with the focus very much on Chechnya. The Prime Minister also discussed Chechnya at length with Acting President Putin in St. Petersburg on 11 March and most recently on 17 April.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Harmon v. HOC Corporate Officer
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the House of Commons has taken following the judgment of the High Court in the case of Harmon v. Corporate Officer of the House of Commons. [119804]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  On 28 October 1999, His Honour Judge Lloyd QC gave judgment on liability in this action, which was brought by an unsuccessful tenderer for the fenestration contract for Portcullis House. The judge held that the Corporate Officer, on behalf of the House, was liable to Harmon for breach of the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991, of European law and implied contract. The action is now continuing for the purpose of assessing the amount of the damages.

  Concerned by the judgment, the House of Commons Commission asked the Clerk of the House to arrange an independent inquiry. On 17 January 2000, the Clerk accordingly appointed Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC, a former Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and Mr. Peter Bosworth, a consultant specialising in project management, to consider the judgment in the case, to inquire into the circumstances which led to it, and to advise him, and through him the Commission, on any action to be taken, including any changes in the structure and practices of the Parliamentary Works Directorate.

  Sir Thomas and Mr. Bosworth completed their inquiry, and submitted their report, on 21 March 2000. The action is still sub judice but I can tell hon. Members that the inquiry concluded in the first place that serious mistakes were made in the handling of the fenestration contract, which exposed the House to liability; and secondly that in future major projects the Parliamentary Works Directorate should establish more clearly: (a) the roles and responsibilities of key members of the project team; (b) a project management process to include guidelines and control systems; and (c) lines of governance within a culture of professional and technical support; and that these recommendations should be taken into account in the current review of the Parliamentary Works Directorate.

  The Commission considered the report of the inquiry on 10 April and accepted its conclusions.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Sir George Young
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer of 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 1152, if she has initiated a review of procedures for making documents available to hon. Members; in what terms she has written to her ministerial colleagues on their responsibilities to the House; and if she will publish their responses and her conclusions at the end of this review. [118657]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have written, in my capacity as Leader of the House, to ministerial colleagues reminding them of the importance of making documents available to hon. Members in the House.

  I also refer the right hon. Member to Madam Speaker's comments on 18 April 2000, Official Report, columns 829–30.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [117477]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 392–93W.

  Police Time
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of police officer time in Leicestershire spent on paperwork in the last year for which figures are available. [113169]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the proportion of time spent by police officers on different tasks is not held centrally. The Association of Chief Police Officers is currently recommending a paper-based method of activity sampling which can be subjected to automated analysis, and is examining Information Technology solutions for the future. These will be compatible with systems being developed under the Home Office's National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS).

  The Government are determined to do everything in their power to help increase the effectiveness of the police in fighting crime, and to ensure that officers are able to spend as much of their time as possible on the front line, as the following measures demonstrate:

  The NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation systems, in which we recently announced a new £40 million investment, will minimise the effort involved in completing forms from arrest to prosecution. There are about 1.3 million paper case-files a year which travel between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. In the course of preparing cases, police officers complete many different forms, repeating information which had already been made available for other legal requirements. The Custody and Case Preparation systems will automatically share information for delivery to the relevant bodies. This not only saves the police time completing forms, but also avoids making mistakes which take further time to resolve.

  The National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) will make possible the electronic capture and identification of fingerprints directly from those who come into custody. This eliminates the need for paper copies and clerical activity and speeds up access to any relevant history.

  The introduction of the Public Service Radio Communications System (PSRCS), which will provide data as well as voice communications, will give the police direct information links to police computer systems while they are on patrol, reducing the need to return to the station to complete forms or to obtain important operational information and increasing their operational availability.
  504W
  Measures introduced last November following the recommendations of the Narey report on Delays in the Criminal Justice systems have gone some way towards reducing the administrative burdens on police officers, and it may be that action which is now being taken pursuant to the Glidewell report on the Crown Prosecution Service will also help in this respect. But work on prosecution case files forms only a part, albeit an important one, of the paperwork required of the police.

  The Cabinet Office 'Public Sector Efficiency Team', set up to investigate and provide ways of reducing the burden of bureaucracy in the public sector, have recently published "Making a Difference: Reducing Police Paperwork". The report examines the impact of paperwork on front-line officers, identifying forms that are a burden to the police. It sets out practical solutions that will lead to a significant reduction in the amount of time police have to spend on paperwork by simplifying or removing reports from the system.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methodologies have been developed to estimate the time spent by police officers on(a) paperwork, (b) detection and (c) prevention of crime; and if he will make a statement. [114365]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Information on the proportion of time spent by police officers on different tasks is not held centrally. The Association of Chief Police Officers is currently recommending a paper-based method of activity sampling which can be subjected to automated analysis, and is examining Information Technology solutions for the future. These will be compatible with systems being developed under the Home Office's National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS).

  The Government are determined to do everything in their power to help increase the effectiveness of the police in fighting crime, and to ensure that officers are able to spend as much of their time as possible on the front line, as the following measures demonstrate:

  The NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation systems, in which we recently announced a new £40 million investment, will minimise the effort involved in completing forms from arrest to prosecution. There are about 1.3 million paper case-files a year which travel between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. In the course of preparing cases, police officers complete many different forms, repeating information which had already been made available for other legal requirements. The Custody and Case Preparation systems will automatically share information for delivery to the relevant bodies. This not only saves the police time completing forms, but also avoids making mistakes which take further time to resolve.

  The National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) will; make possible the electronic capture and identification of fingerprints directly from those who come into custody. This eliminates the need for paper copies and clerical activity and speeds up access to any relevant history.

  The introduction of the Public Service Radio Communications System (PSRCS), which will provide data as well as voice communications, will give the police

  505W
  direct information links to police computer systems while they are on patrol, reducing the need to return to the station to complete forms or to obtain important operational information and increasing their operational availability.

  Measures introduced last November following the recommendations of the Narey report on Delays in the Criminal Justice systems have gone some way towards reducing the administrative burdens on police officers, and it may be that action which is now being taken pursuant to the Glidewell report on the Crown Prosecution Service will also help in this respect. But work on prosecution case files forms only a part, albeit an important one, of the paperwork required of the police.

  The Cabinet Office 'Public Sector Efficiency Team', set up to investigate and provide ways of reducing the burden of bureaucracy in the public sector, have recently published "Making a Difference: Reducing Police Paperwork". The report examines the impact of paperwork on front-line officers, identifying forms that are a burden to the police. It sets out practical solutions that will lead to a significant reduction in the amount of time police have to spend on paperwork by simplifying or removing reports from the system.

  Electoral Commission
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what previous political activity will make a person unsuitable to be appointed as an electoral commissioner. [119147]

  Mr. Straw
  The recruitment process to find the Commissioners will begin shortly and applicants will be asked to declare any political activity within the last ten years. It will be for the selection panel to determine whether that activity has been such as to make the applicant unsuitable for consideration for appointment. For the Commission to perform effectively the functions given to it by Parliament, it must command wide confidence that it is entirely independent and non-partisan. Accordingly, Commissioners must not be, or be perceived to be, associated with any political party.

  We also think that it is right that there should be statutory disqualifiers. My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said on Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill in another place that the Government intend to bring forward amendments to disqualify from appointment as Commissioners persons who have had substantial involvement in party politics.

  The Government will be seeking to disqualify any person who within the last ten years has
  held a relevant effective office as defined in paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 6 to the Bill;
  been an officer of registered political party or one of its accounting units; and
  appeared in the register of Donations maintained by the Commission.
  506W
  Additionally, we will be proposing that no person shall be able to serve as a Commissioner while a member of a political party. We shall also be seeking powers to allow for the automatic termination of appointment if a Commissioner:
  stands for a relevant elective office;
  takes up any office or employment with a registered political party (including accounting units), recognised third parties or permitted participants; and
  makes a recordable donation.

  These additional measures will strengthen the independence of the Commission. The recruitment material sent to applicants will make clear the Government's intention to make these changes to the Bill.

  Kosovan Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of Kosovan refugees living in Greater London. [118830]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on the number of Kosovan refugees living in Greater London is not available.

  Information on the location of refugees is not available, since once an asylum seeker becomes a refugee they no longer are an immigration case, so the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) do not hold any further information on the person/family.

  Kosovan asylum seekers are not separately identified within IND statistics. Kosovo is a region in Yugoslavia and applications from Kosovans are included within the nationality Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), which also includes Serbia and Montenegro. Information on asylum seekers is recorded on a national rather than regional basis and information on the location of asylum seekers is not held centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded incidents of(a) suicide, (b) attempted suicide and (c) self-injury at youth offenders' institutions in England there were in each year since 1991. [119139]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Self-inflicted deaths at young offender institutions 1991–2000

  Number

  1991

  4

  1992

  4

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  2

  1996

  6

  1997

  5

  1998

  5

  1999

  8

  20001

  1

  Total

  37

  1 As at 14 April 2000

  507W

  Incidents of self-harm at young offender institutions 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Number

  1990–91

  312

  1991–92

  341

  1992–93

  469

  1993–94

  474

  1994–95

  717

  1995–96

  1,143

  1996–97

  793

  1997–98

  879

  1998–99

  944

  1999–20001

  n/a

  1 Not yet available

  Notes:

  1. Establishments have been categorised according to their primary role. However, it should be noted that there are a number of other prisons that hold young offenders (eg male remand centres) which are not included.

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

  3. Incidents do not equate to numbers of prisoners as an individual prisoner may self-harm more than once.

  4. Self-harm data are derived from information provided by establishments to the Prison Health Policy Unit. These data include information on all attempted suicides.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded incidents of(a) suicide, (b) attempted suicide and (c) self-injury there were at Brinsford Young Offenders' Institution in each year since the prison was opened. [119023]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Self-inflicted deaths at HMYOI and RC Brinsford 1991–20001

  Number

  1991

  0

  1992

  1

  1993

  0

  1994

  1

  1995

  0

  1996

  1

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  2

  20001

  2

  Total

  7

  Incidents of self-harm at HMYOI and RC Brinsford 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Number

  1990–91

  0

  1991–92

  30

  1992–93

  77

  1993–94

  61

  1994–95

  237

  1995–96

  301

  1996–97

  157

  1997–98

  90

  1998–99

  105

  1999–002

  n/a

  1 As at 14 April 2000

  2 Not yet available

  Notes:

  1. HMYOI and RC Brinsford opened in November 1991.

  2. Establishments have been categorised according to their primary role. However, it should be noted that there are a number of other

  508W

  prisons that hold young offenders (e.g. male remand centres) which are not included.

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

  4. Incidents do not equate to numbers of prisoners as an individual prisoner may self-harm more than once.

  5. Self-harm data are derived from information provided by establishments to the Prison Service Health Policy Unit. These data also include all attempted suicides.

  Mary Walls
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request an inquest into the death of Mary Walls; and if he will make a statement. [117956]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 18 April 2000, Official Report, column 423W.

  Police Central Switchboard Calls
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the public of making telephone calls to a police central switchboard at national rates; and if he will assess the benefits of subsidising the service in order to encourage more people to report crime. [119232]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has made no such estimate.

  Gurpal Virdi
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the Metropolitan Police disciplinary hearing for Sergeant Gurpal Virdi in February, what was the outcome of the request for a tape recorder; what assurance was given of the availability of the transcript; how many days have passed since the end of the hearing without a transcript being made available to Sergeant Virdi; when the police solicitors received a copy; and if he will authorise the release of the transcript. [119477]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that Counsel for Sergeant Virdi withdrew his request for the proceedings to be separately tape-recorded. As a result, no tape recorder was provided for the defendant. A private company employed by the Metropolitan police undertook the official transcription and indicated that they would be able to provide a full transcript within 17 working days from the conclusion of the hearing. Thirty working days have passed since the conclusion of the hearing on 3 March 2000. The Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Branch took delivery of the transcripts on 12 April. These are now being collated with all the other relevant papers and will be sent simultaneously to Sergeant Virdi and Metropolitan police solicitors as soon as they are ready. The release of the transcripts is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations the Metropolitan police made about the date of the tribunal on the unfair dismissal claim by Sergeant Gurpal Virdi; and when they first asked for a postponement. [119478]
  509W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the position in relation to Sergeant Gurpal Virdi's case before the employment tribunal remains unaltered since my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 30 November 1999,Official Report, column 110W, and that no further postponement has been sought by the Metropolitan police.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119510]

  Mr. Straw
  Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill provides the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies with the power to require communications data, such as subscriber details and itemised billing, in a closely controlled manner and for a number of specific purposes such as preventing or detecting crime.

  The Bill provides greater safeguards than those which are currently in place for the provision of such data under the Data Protection Act regime, but the purposes for which it may be obtained under the new legislation are very similar. As a result, I do not expect any significant change in the extent to which communications data are obtained.

  Immigration
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to make a decision on the case of Home Office visa application number S1016548 in the name of Phailin Sae Kuay; and if he will make a statement. [119657]

  Mrs. Roche
  A decision has now been made in this case and a reply to the hon. Member was sent on 17 April from the Integrated Casework Directorate.

  Disabled Parking Places
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set a national level of fines on people parking illegally in areas reserved for disabled drivers. [119303]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: There is a maximum national level of fines for the offence of parking illegally in an area reserved for disabled drivers. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine, currently £1,000. When such offences are brought before the courts it is for the court to decide the nature and severity of penalties, taking account of the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

  More commonly, such offences are dealt with under the fixed penalty system in which the offender is required to pay a fixed penalty notice in lieu of prosecution. This is currently £20 for all such non-endorsable offences outside London, £30 inside London and £40 on Red Routes. The
  510W
  different levels of penalty reflect greater traffic pressures and congestion in London and the need for greater compliance. The level of fixed penalty are under review.

  Distraction Burglary
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to respond to the crime of distraction burglary. [120181]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Bogus callers claim over 16,000 victims every year, but the true figure is believed to be much higher because many people do not report the burglary.

  This is a particularly nasty crime as its victims are usually the most vulnerable people in our society; more often than not they are older people living alone.

  I have established a steering group bringing together government and industry. Its membership is made up of: Severn Trent Water, Water UK, the Electricity Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Age Concern, BT Security, Crime Concern, Crimestoppers, the National Neighbourhood Watch Association, the Institute of Trading Standards, the National Housing Federation and the Womens Royal Volunteer Service. It first met on 11 April and is currently finalising a detailed set of proposals to take forward its work.

  This group will:
  pull together existing good practice from across the country;
  establish a database so that details on offenders can be shared;
  provide co-ordinated advice for victims of this crime; and
  produce a help pack for workers who have regular contact with people from vulnerable groups.

  Two staff will support it: a community Safety Officer from local government and a police detective superintendent. Both are based at the Home Office.

  I will tomorrow, with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association and Severn Trent Water, launch this initiative with the first nationwide leaflet drop to groups and residents across the country.

  I am pleased to report that Water UK have agreed to provide sponsorship support for this initiative for two years. The Electricity Association has also agreed to support the Taskforce by a financial contribution.

  This is not, however, a crime that the Government can tackle alone. Organisations that send out people for home visits have an enormous role to play and I am very pleased that so many have agreed to support this initiative. But more is needed and we will continue to seek support from all our partners in this.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from

  511W
  such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119549]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department's policy follows the guidance given in the Framework policy and guidelines for the use, management and design of public sector websites. This document, which forms part of the e-government strategy, can be found on the website of the Information Age Government Champions. The official websites of my Department and its executive agencies do not currently carry any advertising or company sponsorship and have never done so in the past. The non-departmental public bodies have set up their own websites independently of the Home Office in most cases. The information requested for these bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Coronation Service
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of Professor Paul Weller's report containing recommendations on the Coronation Service in the Library. [119721]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A copy of Professor Paul Weller's interim report on his research project on religious discrimination was placed in the Library on 27 January. The report mentions the Coronation Service in passing, but makes no recommendations about it.

  Police Recruits
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 2000,Official Report, column 258W, if his estimates of the cost of a police recruit, published in the Crime Fighting Fund bidding guidelines still apply; what the cost is of providing (a) the 2,000 additional recruits in 2000–01 and (b) the 3,000 additional recruits in 2001–02; if he has announced funding for the provision of the 2,000 additional recruits in 2000–01 above the £11 million he announced on 6 April 2000 and the £35 million he announced on 30 September 1999; what discussions he has had with police forces on the revised allocation of those recruits and of funding for them; if he will publish the revised allocation; and if he will make a statement. [119780]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 6 April 2000,Official Report, columns 595–96W.

  The estimates of the cost of a police recruit as set out in the Crime Fighting Fund bidding guidelines, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 2 December 1999, still apply. My officials have held discussions with police service and police authority representatives and I will make a further announcement as soon as the details of the accelerated scheme have been finalised.

HEALTH

  Residential Homes (Elderly)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has carried out research into the 512W
  impact on life expectancy for residents of the closure of residential homes for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [119470]

  Mr. Hutton
  There has been no research carried out into the impact on life expectancy for residents of the closure of residential homes for the elderly.

  We are considering the need for such research and expect to make an announcement in the near future.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions, during official visits outside London, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), has met(a) trade union representatives and (b) Community Health Council representatives. [119471]

  Ms Stuart
  I have met representatives of trades unions, staff and Community Health Councils informally during official visits outside London. I also met with members of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union on 4 November 1999 and the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales on 22 February 2000 in London.

  Both organisations have a role to play in modernising the National Health Service and I will continue to meet with their representatives as appropriate.

  Voice Output Communication Aids
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from LEAs requesting central Government ring-fenced financing for voice output communication aids in special schools for pupils with communication difficulties; and if he will make a statement; [119221]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to help special schools and LEAs to improve the provision of communication aids for children with speech and communication problems; [119222]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the provision of voice output communication aids in special schools, for children with learning disabilities and lack of verbal communication skills; [119223]

  (4) what responsibility his Department has for the provision of voice output communication aids for pupils attending special schools who have health-related disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [119224]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received no direct representations from local education authorities about communication aids for children in special schools.

  Between 1992 and 1995, the Department, in collaboration with the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), funded an initiative on communication aids for children which published Guidelines to Good Practice in 1995. This promotes the importance of a jointly planned, funded and delivered service. It advocates a multi-professional local service to meet local needs.
  513W
  This guidance continues to reflect Departmental policy. We do however recognise that further development is needed to ensure local services are able to take advantage of the wide range of sophisticated electronic devices which are now available.

  We are currently considering with DfEE what action may be necessary to further improve these services.

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119440]

  Ms Stuart
  So that the Cabinet Office can publish the spring 2000 report monitoring progress towards the delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005, we are currently collecting data, which will include our progress on delivering 25 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2002. I do not want to pre-empt that report but I can say that we currently provide a range of services electronically. Those included are:

  NHS Direct on-line—(http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk)
  which supports the NHS Direct 24-hour nurse staffed telephone help line for people who want information and advice about health, illness and services. This service was launched in December 1999.
  Information and knowledge for patients and healthcare professionals will be delivered through the development of the National electronic Library for Health—(http://www.nelh. nhs.uk)—a virtual library designed to provide easy access to best current knowledge about health and healthcare, in order to improve clinical practice and patient choice. It is intended to give access to both healthcare professionals and patients. It is already being piloted and should be rolled out across the NHS by 2002.

  Department of Health—(http://www.doh.gov.uk)
  The Department's website provides a wide range of guidance and services on line. Key examples include:
  Guidance and information on policies, initiatives and services
  Departmental circulars and publications are available online on the Department's COIN (Circulars On the INternet) and POINT (Publications On the INTernet) databases
  Chief Medical Officer's Urgent Alerts cascaded electronically to health authorities
  A dedicated corporate e-mail address for inquiries from members of the public
  Consultative exercises on particular policies or initiatives eg children's services planning and deafblind services
  Statistical returns from the NHS and local authorities
  Information alerting business to opportunities eg
  Private finance initiative standard contract form and guidance
  A management consultancy database which enables management consultants to register their organisation's details and experience which are then accessible through the departmental intranet to the Department's staff.
  Tendering opportunities—most recently human resource management development programmes for the NHS, a briefing Pack and expression of interest questionnaire were published on the website.
  Contributions to the pan-governmental sites—direct access government and the local government web ring
  514W
  A number of forms can be downloaded from the site (eg Section 64 Grants)
  Research and development funding—guidance and application forms for national and regional research and development programmes
  Links to relevant sites

  Medicines ControlAgency—(http://www.mca.gov.uk)
  Website
  Application forms and some guidance notes can be downloaded from the MCA's website, as can order forms for publications and the catalogue for the MCA's Eurodirect publications service.
  E-mail
  All staff in the MCA have e-mail addresses and can be contacted electronically. There is also a dedicated corporate e-mail address for inquiries from members of the public.
  AEGIS (ADROIT Electronically Generated Information Service)
  AEGIS allows the electronic transmission of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) data between the MCA and selected pharmaceutical companies. AEGIS is a continuously evolving system involving close liaison between the MCA and participating pharmaceutical companies. AEGIS allows the supply of ADR data reports electronically, from the MCA's ADROIT system on demand, thus allowing access to up-to-date information and easy transfer of data to subscribing companies. The AEGIS system also allows messages to be sent to and from the MCA using the Mail facility. This allows the MCA to deal with individual company's specific queries. AEGIS enables ADR reports to be sent to the MCA electronically using the AEGIS e-mail system. The receipt of reports is also acknowledged electronically.
  GP electronic reporting of ADRs
  The MCA has worked closely with two general practitioner prescribing system suppliers (EMIS and AAH MEDITEL) to develop an electronic "Yellow Card" (the means by which ADRs are reported to the MCA by healthcare professionals). The report is accessed from within the GPs computer system and allows most of the relevant information about the patient and their treatment to be automatically populated from the patients records hence minimising time consuming GP input.
  RAMA (Remote Access to Marketing Authorisations)
  The RAMA service provides subscribers with on line, real time access to non-confidential information on all authorised medicinal products in the UK and additional confidential information on their own medicinal products and can track the progress of their applications. Subscribers additionally can create some parts of their applications on RAMA and send them electronically to the MCA for final quality assurance and assessment.

  NHS Pensions Agency (England and Wales) Website—(http://www.nhspa.gov.uk)
  Scheme and NHS Pensions Agency latest developments
  Contact details for the Agency's pension services including phone numbers, e-mail addresses
  A comprehensive library containing
  Scheme information booklets and instructional guides
  Scheme regulations
  Employer newsletter
  Employer manuals of guidance
  Reports and feedback from employer/agency consultative forums
  The NHS Pensions Agency's annual report and accounts
  The agency's Member's Charter
  Complaints and dispute procedures
  Frequently asked questions
  Calendar of events
  Interactive discussion forum

  515W
  Links to relevant sites
  Download page for appropriate software
  Search facility and site map

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency—(http://www.nhspa.gov.uk)
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency provides the following services on-line for NHS trusts and health authorities:
  Electronic communications
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency website includes purchasing advice and information to NHS Trusts, provides information, promotional and technical information in support of contracting activity and a web version of the Agency's contracts catalogue.
  Electronic catalogues
  NHS Supplies' contracts catalogue, with 4,217 contracts and 1,428 suppliers, produced on CD ROM, continued to be developed throughout 1999 in response to NHS trusts' suggestions for improvement. A web version of the contracts catalogue has been available since September 1999. 3,000 CDs are issued monthly with 140,000 products shown.
  Links to contracted suppliers
  Electronic links have been created between the Agency's website and a dedicated NHS-contract website developed by suppliers in a joint initiative with NHS Supplies. This link enables NHS Trusts to access a wide variety of additional product and technical information to aid their purchase decisions.
  Supplier profiles and information
  The development of links to supplier websites for contracted products incorporates a parallel development on the display of company profile information, to provide trusts with standard company information required as part of the tendering process. This information is now available to all trusts from a number of the Agency's contracted suppliers and eliminates the need for suppliers to provide such data in paper format. With over 1,400 suppliers more work is required during the year to obtain critical mass.
  European Union contract notices
  NHS Supplies has played an active part in the development of an information technology software package to allow the electronic transmission of contract notices to the European Union in Brussels. The heads of purchasing in the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also supported this work.
  Contract management system
  During 1999, a contract work plan management system was developed in-house by NHS Supplies to enable buyers to record and monitor purchasing and contracting work in progress. Relevant information from this system will be displayed on the Agency's website to give trusts information on the Agency's detailed purchasing and contracting plans for 2000–01.

  NHS Estates—(http://www.nhsestates.gov.uk)
  On the NHS Estates website, there is general information on NHS Estates, including download publications and policy information.

  Medical Devices Agency—(http://www.medical-devices.gov.uk)

  Services currently provided on line include:

  e-mail links into the agency

  Regulatory guidance

  Publications catalogue

  Corporate information, roles and responsibilities

  MDA business plan, annual report and accounts

  Contact information (including a complaints procedure)

  Full text of hazard and safety notices and device alerts

  Advice on reporting adverse incidents

  Literature reviews

  Information on global harmonisation

  516W

  Links to related sites

  Year 2000 information on medical devices

  Notification of job opportunities.

  Infection Control
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the amount spent on infection control in the NHS for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement; [118853]

  (2) how many NHS trusts have infection control teams in place; and what is the average amount spent by trusts on infection control in each of the past five years. [118852]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: All acute National Health Service trusts have an infection control team. Details of the amount spent by the NHS, including trusts, on infection control, are not held centrally. Expenditure on infection control is a matter for individual organisations to determine in the light of their local circumstances. Infection control is a priority for the NHS and is a "must do" in the "Modernising Health and Social Services National Priorities Guidance 2000/01—2002/03".

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to revise his Department's 1995 guidance on infection control following the report by the National Audit Office on the Management and Control of Hospital-Acquired Infection in Acute Trusts in England; and if he will make a statement. [118855]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: Action has already been taken to update and reinforce the 1995 guidance. Infection Control standards for National Health Service acute trusts were issued in November 1999 and a circular was issued on 11 February setting out a timetabled programme of action to strengthen arrangements for the prevention and control of infection in hospitals.

  Guillain Barré Syndrome
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of current standards of care for patients in the acute stage of Guillain-Barré syndrome. [119775]

  Ms Stuart
  We are not aware of any assessments made into the current standards of care for patients in the acute stage of Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

  There are a number of National Health Service services which patients with Guillain-Barré Syndrome may access. These services can include care and advice from their general practitioner, support from therapists and nursing support.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients suffering from Guillain Barré Syndrome received(a) intravenous immunoglobin and (b) plasma exchange in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii)1999 and (iv) 2000. [119776]

  Ms Stuart
  The tables show the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where the main diagnosis was Guillain-Barré Syndrome, for selected procedures, in National Health Service hospitals in England, for the years 1996–97 to 1998–99. Data for 1999–2000 are not yet available.
  517W

  Table 1: Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where primary diagnosis was G61.0 (Guillain-Barré Syndrome) with any mention of the selection procedures

  NHS Hospitals England 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Diagnosis G61.0

  1,316

  1,222

  1,318

  With procedure

  X30.1—Injection of rh immune globulin

  28

  14

  11

  X30.2—Injection of gamma globulin

  83

  68

  88

  X34.2—Transfusion of plasma

  16

  2

  7

  X35.2—Intravenous immunotherapy

  63

  59

  61

  Table 2: FCEs where primary diagnosis was G61.0 (Guillain-Barré Syndrome) with any mention of the selected procedures

  NHS Hospitals England 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Diagnosis G61.0

  1,316

  1,222

  1,318

  Percentage with

  X30.1—Injection of rh immune globulin

  2

  1

  1

  X30.2—Injection of gamma globulin

  6

  6

  7

  X34.2—Transfusion of plasma

  1

  0

  1

  X35.2—Intravenous immunotherapy

  5

  5

  5

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes in one year.

  There are four operation fields in the HES record—the above table shows a count of every mention of the procedures X30.1, X30.2, X34.2 or X35.3 in the episodes where G61.0 was the main diagnosis.

  Data in the tables are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1997–98 and 1998–99 which are ungrossed.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been deregistered for financial reasons by their dentist, in each health authority area, in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [119163]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over the period 3 July 1992 to 29 March 1996, a weekly survey was carried out to see how many patients were being de-registered because their dentist was dissatisfied with the remuneration system. The results have been placed in the Library. The survey was ended after 1996 when registration stabilised. At the end of February 2000, 23.5 million people were registered with a GDS dentist, virtually the same as in February 1999, 23.6 million.

  NHS Ancillary Staff
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 354W, on cleaning staff, if he will give details of (a) the total number of support staff in the NHS and (b) the total cost to the NHS of contract hotel services and laundry and cleaning equipment in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [119164]
  518W
  Ms Stuart
  National Health Service expenditure for contract hotel services, laundry and cleaning equipment in England 1998–99 is shown in the table.

  Expenditure on in-house cleaning services is not collected centrally.

  Analysis of NHS expenditure on contract hotel services and laundry and cleaning equipment—England, 1998–99

  Expenditure (£)

  Contract hotel services (including cleaning)

  247,634,567

  Laundry and cleaning equipment

  66,329,277

  Total

  313,963,844

  Source:

  Annual financial returns for health authorities and NHS trusts

  The total number of support staff (NHS Hospital and Community Health Services) employed by the NHS in England as at 30 September 1998 is shown in the table.

  All Support Staff

  Whole time equivalent

  65,300

  Numbers (headcount)

  91,160

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Radiological Protection Board has finalised its report on the possible health effects of the use of mobile phones, stations and transmitters; and when the report will be published. [119462]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Radiological Protection Board was asked to set up an independent expert group on mobile phones. The group, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS FRSE, has been considering the possible health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters and conducting a comprehensive assessment of existing research. The group is currently finalising its report and publication is expected in May.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the development of his Department's research plans on the biological and health effects of mobile phone masts; when these plans will be announced; and how they will be funded. [119461]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following our response to the report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the scientific advisory system and mobile phones and health, discussions were held with the industry about funding a collaborative United Kingdom based research programme. Detailed research plans are currently being developed and will take into account the recommendations of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones expected to be published in May.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial

  519W
  year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119548]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department complies with the "Framework Policy and Guidelines for Government Websites" published by the Central Information Technology Unit of the Cabinet Office. This allows for advertising and sponsorship on departmental web pages but advises that in many contexts this may not be appropriate.

  The Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies do not carry advertising or sponsorship on their websites. Some hyperlinks to free internet products do appear when it is judged that these may enhance viewing of the sites, for example to the free Adobe Acrobat viewer, but no revenue is received by the Department or its agencies and non-departmental bodies in return for these hyperlinks.

  Some National Health Service websites mention companies who have provided services to assist in the development of the site. Examples include the site set up to mark the 50th anniversary of the NHS and NHS Direct Online. In these instances, the "sponsorship" is in the form of provision of technical services, and relationships such as these enable the NHS to get the best possible value for its web developments. In these cases, the NHS receives the technical service free of charge and does not obtain revenue for mention of company names or display of company logos.

  Bread (Folic Acid)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make the addition of folic acid to bread and bread flour a statutory requirement; and if he will make a statement. [119773]

  Ms Stuart
  We plan to consult widely on the addition of folic acid to flour, including bread and bread flour. The consultation is planned for later this year and a decision will be made after this process is completed.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that their existing progressive treatment pattern is maintained for cleft lip and palate patients whose units are scheduled for closure following his Department's review. [119750]

  Ms Stuart
  Clinical decisions are based on the one-to-one relationship between clinicians and other health professionals and their patients. It will be for the main cleft lip and palate centres and their "spoke" units to ensure high standards of care through ongoing training and education and through quality control procedures such as national inter-centre audit.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason his Department has stipulated an average of 40 to 50 new referrals per surgeon per annum for designated cleft lip and palate units. [119748]

  Ms Stuart
  The report on cleft lip and palate services by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group proposed that all surgeons involved in the care of patients with cleft 520W
  lip and palate malformations should perform at least 40 to 50 operations annually. We have accepted the recommendations of this report.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if current cleft lip and palate patients whose existing unit is closing will be able to choose the new unit to which they are referred for treatment. [119751]

  Ms Stuart
  It is proposed that cleft lip and palate services should be provided as a "hub and spoke" model. The main "hub" centres will provide specialist facilities for patients, and will work closely with a network of "spoke" hospitals that will provide continuing care services, thus improving access and availability.

  Most patients will attend their nearest "spoke" centre for the routine elements of their care. The main "hub" centre will be responsible for specialist treatments, including both primary and secondary surgical episodes. Existing patients who require specialist care will normally attend the main "hub" centre linked to their "spoke" hospital. However, if there are good reasons, patients may be referred to another main "hub" centre for specialist treatments.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name the cleft lip and palate units listed in Table 25 (Assessment of providers) of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group report published in February 1998. [119749]

  Ms Stuart
  This information was given on a confidential basis to the Clinical Standards Advisory Group research team, and was not made available. Since the research was carried out, the situation has changed and the information obtained is no longer correct.

  Overseas Doctors
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he issues on checking the previous employment records of overseas doctors wishing to register to practise in the UK; and what plans he has to change these. [119614]

  Ms Stuart
  The General Medical Council (GMC), which is an independent statutory body, licences doctors to practice medicine in the United Kingdom, following an examination of their qualifications.

  The National Health Service terms and conditions of service of hospital medical and dental staff require all career grade doctors to hold full registration with the GMC, while doctors in training should hold either limited or provisional registration.

  NHS employers have a responsibility to take all possible action to ensure that all doctors they appoint are fit to practise. The Department has issued guidance reinforcing the need for pre-employment checks for doctors in the "Good Practice Guidance" issued with the "Appointment of Consultants Regulations 1996". Additionally, the Department has issued HSG(98)64 "The Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues of NHS Staff', and HSC 1998/212 "Children's Safeguard Review: Choosing with Care", which cover all NHS staff and advises NHS employers to ensure proper pre-employment checks are made so that employees do not represent a risk to patients.
  521W
  In addition to the existing guidance, the Department plans to issue shortly a Direction requiring NHS employers to include in their application forms for doctors a declaration to be completed by applicant stating whether or not they have been or are the subject of disciplinary action by an overseas licensing or regulatory body.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119437]

  Mr. Lock
  So that the Cabinet Office can publish the spring 2000 report monitoring progress towards delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005 we are currently collecting data which will include our progress on delivering 25 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2002. The Lord Chancellor's Department currently provide a range of services electronically that include:

  Just Ask!-the Community Legal Service Website.

  Just Ask! provides co-ordinated access to several hundred legal information and help websites through its Advice Search feature. The site also features an electronic version of the CLS Directory, to be updated daily, containing over 15,000 entries. The Directory enables users to locate, either locally or nationally, legal service providers that can assist with the query at hand. The site is accessible through many channels. It has been built in accordance with World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) guidelines that ensure websites meet the needs of disabled users. It also features information in Welsh and six community languages (Bengali, Cantonese, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu).

  Legal Services Commission (LSC)

  The LSC website provides a direct information service to both the citizen and suppliers of legal aid services. Documents for the public and legal services suppliers are included on the website, these are presented with representation of published leaflets, forms and manuals. These can be downloaded by the user and there is provision for e-mail feed back to the editor.

  The Court Service

  The Court Service has a significant number of business areas where services are delivered electronically. The Claim Production Centre (CPC) receives liquidated default claims in electronic format. The claim data are then electronically transferred from the centre to the court of the issuing party's nomination. Notification of issue is produced and, in most cases, faxed to the issuing party. The County Court Bulk Centre (CCBC) takes the centralised aspect of the CPC and deals with all administration processes after issue of claim. All judgments are entered via electronic means. The Centralised Attachment of Earnings Payment System (CAPS) performs the vast majority of the Civil Court's Suitors' Cash function. It receives attachment of earnings order information electronically from the local court, produces and dispatches the orders to the parties and, more importantly, the employer, and then collects and monitors for payments. The Parking Enforcement Centre
  522W
  (PEC) was established to support business resulting from the Road Traffic Act of 1991 which de-criminalised parking offences. Participating local authorities register any claims where the parking fine has gone unpaid despite the issue of a penalty notice. If there are no objections lodged to the registration, the authority can apply to issue a warrant of execution. All registrations and applications for warrants are sent electronically. Call Centres support the CCBC, CAPS and PEC. They operate generally between 8 am and 5 pm, Monday to Friday and are supported by out of hours messaging. Court Lists (hearing dates and times) are currently provided electronically to some criminal justice organisations and to defence legal practitioners. The Court Service website is used to provide a wide range of services including:
  Access to over 200 Court of Appeal and High Court judgments (selected by the judges concerned);
  Access to the daily lists for the whole of the Supreme Court Group and the Crown Court;
  233 court forms (which may be completed on screen) are available;
  62 information leaflets or particular relevant to court users (including guidance for court users who are deaf or hard of hearing), the professions and small businesses. Eleven of the information leaflets are available in the Welsh language, as is the Court Service Annual Report;
  An Introduction to the Court Service; and
  Access to a large number of Related Sites.

  Tribunals

  Four Tribunals offer web based services, namely:
  Office of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners;
  Immigration Appellate Authority;
  Special Commissioners of Income Tax;
  VAT and Duties Tribunal.

  The range of services offered spans: explanation of tribunals' functions and standards of service; guidance as to how to appeal and for oral hearings; electronic forms; and catalogued commissioners' decisions.

  HM Land Registry (HMLR)

  HMLR provides a Direct Access Service which allows its Account Holders to view any computerised register online (95 per cent. of registered stock of some 16 million titles are computerised), lodge official searches, order office copies of the land register, view details of pending applications and provide electronic notification of discharge of charges. From its website, the HMLR also provides an interactive residential property price database providing details of property prices from regional down to postal sector levels. It also provides a forms library, where 44 types of Land Registry applications forms can be downloaded and used free of charge.

  The Public Record Office (PRO)

  The public can use the internet to
  consult the catalogues of the PRO's holdings;
  order documents in advance to be used in the reading rooms at Kew;
  order books from the PRO's bookshop;
  obtain estimates for the cost of copies of documents;
  obtain information about the operations of the Public Record Office, copies of press releases and of some recently released documents; and
  use the Learning Curve, the PRO's contribution to the National Grid for Learning.

  Blackwell Committee
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the committee established by the Lord Chancellor to investigate non-legally qualified claims assessors and employment advisers (the Blackwell Committee) has completed its inquiries; and when it is intended to publish its report. [120091]

  Mr. Lock
  The Blackwell Committee has completed its investigations into the activities of non-legally qualified claims assessors and employment advisers. The Department has today published its report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119554]

  Mr. Lock
  Government sites are permitted to carry advertising, but at present there is no advertising or company sponsorship on any of the following websites:

  Lord Chancellor's Department HQ

  Court Service

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  HM Land Registry

  Public Record Office

  Public Trust Office

  Judicial Studies Board

  Legal Services Commission

  Just Ask (Community Legal Service).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  National Security Certificate System
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure the adherence of the national security certificate system to the quality scheme under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [117361]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The issue of national security certificates would fall with the Department's assessment of the extent to which each of its current functions, policies or duties has an impact on the promotion of equality of opportunity and the promotion of good relations within the terms of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. On 7 April, the Department published its draft Equality Scheme explaining how it intends to fulfil the duties imposed by section 75 of the 1998 Act.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of what the final cost will be of the Saville inquiry. [117572]
  524W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 April 2000): The Inquiry currently estimates that the final costs will be in the order of £65 million. That estimate is subject to revision in the light, in particular, of the duration of the hearings and the final determination of those payments to lawyers which are currently being made on an interim basis. The largest single block of expenditure is the lawyers involved in the Inquiry: these are expected to account for about two thirds of the total costs.

  Ambulance Bay (Armagh)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the ambulance bay will be provided at Constabulary House, Russell Street, Armagh City; and if he will make a statement. [119022]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. C. James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. John. D. Taylor, dated 19 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about the provision of an ambulance bay at Constabulary House, Russell Street, Armagh.
  Roads Service is currently progressing the statutory procedures required under Articles 10(4) and 13(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 to authorise that a section of road fronting Constabulary House, Armagh be used for the parking of ambulances. A notice outlining our intention in this respect will be published in the local press tomorrow, Thursday20 April 2000.
  Assuming there are no objections to our proposal, we anticipate that the parking bay should be operational by the middle of June.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Forest Service
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Forest Service for the financial year 2000–01. [120235]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following key targets have been set for the Forest Service for 2000–01:Achieve 700 hectares of new planting in public and private sectors combined
  Offer for sale 340,000
  Achieve 440,000 paying visitors
  Maintain the forest estate under sustainable management
  Approve (or reject) 90 per cent. of applications under the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme within eight weeks of receipt of a properly completed application form
  Following planting, pay 90 per cent. of grant claims within eight weeks of receipt of a properly completed claim form
  Complete a strategic review of NI forestry policy by 31 March 2001
  Achieve an outturn which meets the targeted net cost of the forestry programme
  Achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains
  Control DRC and programme expenditure to within 1 per cent. of the final control totals.

  The Forest Service Business Plan for 2000–02 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses at a later date.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits sponsored by the Industrial Development Board of prospective(a) incoming and (b) United Kingdom investors there were to each council area in 1998–99; and what is his (i) latest estimate of the corresponding figures for 1999–2000 and (ii) estimate of the total number of visits to Northern Ireland by potential inward investors for 1999–2000, broken down by (1) first time and (2) repeat visits. [118520]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table provides details of visits by potential investors to Northern Ireland District Council areas arranged by the Industrial Development Board in 1998–99.

  The details for 1999–2000 will be made available with the publication of the IDB Annual Report which is expected in the autumn.

  Details of first and repeat visits to Northern Ireland in 1999–2000 will be made available with the publication of the IDB End of Year Statement which is due in mid-May.

  IDB promoted inward investment visits 1998–99

  Potential investor company visits

  Council area

  Overseas Companies

  UK Companies

  Antrim

  37

  7

  Ards

  3

  1

  Armagh

  2

  0

  Ballymena

  3

  1

  Ballymoney

  1

  1

  Banbridge

  1

  0

  Belfast

  52

  26

  Carrickfergus

  7

  4

  Castlereagh

  4

  3

  Coleraine

  3

  0

  Cookstown

  3

  0

  Craigavon

  11

  0

  Derry

  25

  4

  Down

  5

  0

  Dungannon

  1

  0

  Fermanagh

  2

  0

  Larne

  7

  3

  Limavady

  2

  0

  Lisburn

  30

  5

  Magherafelt

  1

  0

  Moyle

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  7

  0

  Newtownabbey

  11

  7

  North Down

  6

  1

  Omagh

  5

  0

  Strabane

  6

  1

  Total

  235

  64

  Notes:

  1. Visit elements for other than inward investment purposes, such as visits to tourist attractions, are excluded.

  2. General visits to Northern Ireland not including a specific council area are excluded.

  3. Total District Council visits may exceed total visits to Northern Ireland as a company visit may cover more than one District Council area.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 5 April 2000,Official Report, column 472W, on debt
  526W
  collection, if her policy on giving debt relief includes discrimination between good and bad stewardship by aid recipients. [118415]

  Clare Short
  The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative is an international agreement and so the conditions attached to the debt relief provided under the initiative must be agreed internationally. As my answer on 5 April made clear, I am pleased that the main criterion is that the debt relief benefits the poor, with governments of HIPC countries producing poverty reduction strategies to qualify for their relief.

  The internationally agreed conditions for debt relief do not discriminate between good and bad stewardship of aid in the past. In many cases, the indebtedness will have arisen, in part, from bad stewardship of aid and other resources. Regardless of past performance, very poor, heavily indebted countries can qualify for the initiative. The key test is whether current governments have demonstrated a commitment to sound policies and poverty reduction, which will include the effective use of aid resources. The HIPC initiative requires a track record of three years before countries start getting their debt relief.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119552]

  Clare Short
  Our website does not carry any advertising or acknowledgements of company sponsorship and we have no plans to change this policy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy; and if he will make a statement. [118474]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 April. [119325]

  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.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the offices (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department and its agencies in Scotland and (b) the number of staff (y) employed and (z) that can be accommodated (1) in total and (2) at each site. [114237]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: My Department rents accommodation in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Details of the locations and the staff currently employed are as follows. Details of the maximum number of staff that could be accommodated at each site cannot be accurately assessed. This would depend on the configuration of the accommodation.

  Location

  Number of staff employed

  Dover House, London

  39

  Meridian Court, Glasgow

  6

  1 Melville Crescent, Edinburgh

  18

  Victoria Quay, Edinburgh

  19

  50 Frederick Street, Edinburgh

  3

  Departmental Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117818]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scotland Office employs 16 qualified lawyers in the office of the Advocate-General for Scotland. It is not possible to provide a meaningful comparison with the legal staffing of the Scottish Office before devolution.

  Inverness Travel-to-Work Area
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 March 2000,Official Report, column 110W, on assisted areas, if he will indicate in respect of the Inverness travel-to-work area what comparators he has used which indicate that it is an area of extremely low population density leading to additional costs in the provision of goods and services. [117763]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 5 April 2000]: I have written to the right hon. Member and to other hon. Members with details of the Government's revised proposals for the Assisted Areas map. These proposals are also the subject of wider consultation. In formulating our revised proposals, the Government have taken account of the European Commission's guidelines, which indicate that NUTS 3 areas can be regarded as sparsely populated if they have a population density less than 12.5 persons per square kilometre.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on
  528W
  those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119550]

  Dr. Reid
  Government websites are permitted to carry advertising but my Department has not yet decided whether to do so. Any development of the Scotland Office website will be within the framework of the e-government strategy for public sector websites.

  No advertisements have appeared on the Scotland Office website, nor on the website of the former Scottish Office, so no revenue has been generated.

WALES

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of people who have left the New Deal for Young People and returned to state benefits within 12 months. [118443]

  Mr. Hanson
  Figures for Wales show that, by January 2000, 18,300 young people had left the New Deal for Young People. Of these, 2,600 (14 per cent.) moved directly to other benefits. 17 per cent. of leavers to date had subsequently made a claim for JSA within 12 months of leaving.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reform of local government in Wales. [118444]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Government are committed to the agenda for modernisation of local government in Wales set out in the 1998 White Paper "Local Voices". The Local Government Bill will help to secure a bigger say for local people by providing for new executive structures which will improve efficiency and accountability. It will also set up a new ethical framework, specifically tailored to Welsh needs, and empower councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities.

  Health Service Reform
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting in Cardiff on 7 April of the Joint Ministerial Committee on reform and modernisation of the health service. [118445]

  Mr. Hanson
  This was a very important and very useful meeting. It showed there is a commitment from all parts of the UK to share ideas and learn from each other in order to modernise our National Health Service. The meeting also highlighted a new, shared way of working post devolution and discussed the Government's overall UK increase in NHS investment for the next four years, to raise the level to European averages.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the reform and modernisation of the NHS in Wales. [118458]
  529W
  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Health Secretary to discuss the NHS in Wales. Reform and Modernisation has, of course, been on our agenda and the first meeting of the Joint Ministerial Group on the NHS in the UK was held in Cardiff on 7 April. At that meeting, chaired by the Prime Minister, ideas on modernisation were shared between Ministers from all parts of the UK.

  Councillors (Remuneration)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Local Government Bill on the cost of remuneration of councillors in Wales. [118446]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Local Government Bill provides for the setting up of independent panels to advise on levels of remuneration. It is not possible to assess the impact of such panels on the cost of councillors' remuneration, as the panels are independent and their recommendations are only advisory.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on NHS waiting lists in Wales. [118447]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Health Secretary to discuss health issues. The subject of waiting lists is often a part of our discussions. It was also discussed at the first meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee for Health held recently in Cardiff. The National Assembly has invested over £37 million to reduce waiting lists in Wales.

  Learning and Skills Bill
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the Learning and Skills Bill. [118448]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have received several representations about the Learning and Skills Bill, including from hon. Members, training providers and the industry sector.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about health funding in Wales. [118449]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the First Secretary and the Assembly Health Secretary to discuss Health issues in Wales. In the light of the recent Budget announcements we have, of course, discussed health funding specifically. However, it is for the National Assembly to decide how the additional funding allocated to Wales is distributed.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the policy of the National Assembly concerning genetically modified crops. [118450]
  530W
  Mr. Hanson
  I have regular meetings with the Assembly Agriculture Secretary Christine Gwyther and we have frequently discussed the issue of genetically modified crops.

  Education Funding
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about education funding in Wales. [118451]

  Mr. Hanson
  I regularly meet the Assembly Secretaries when I discuss a variety of issues. In the light of the recent Budget announcements, I will be discussing education funding. However, it is for the National Assembly to decide how the additional funding allocated to Wales is distributed.

  Sport
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to discuss access to sport with the First Secretary; and if he will make a statement. [118452]

  Mr. Hanson
  I meet the Assembly Secretaries on a regular basis to discuss a variety of issues including the development of sport in Wales.

  Agriculture
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the recently announced support package for farmers in Wales. [118454]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The farming unions in Wales have broadly welcomed the support package for farmers in Wales which was announced at the recent agriculture summit chaired by the Prime Minister on 30 March.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss the future of agriculture in Wales. [118455]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and discuss a wide range of issues, including the agriculture industry in Wales. The farming summit on 30 March chaired by the Prime Minister demonstrated the Government's commitment to the future of farming, agreeing a package of measures and additional funding for farmers across the UK. This will include measures to help them adapt to the problems facing agricultural economies in the 21st century. This should mean an additional £28 million in total for Welsh farmers.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the state of farming in Wales. [118459]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues including the Welsh farming industry. This subject was addressed at the Agriculture Summit chaired by the Prime Minister on 30 March, when a package of measures worth £200 million across the UK was agreed. The Finance Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales has subsequently confirmed that over £28 million of this will be available to Welsh farmers.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Assembly Secretary for Education to discuss education maintenance allowances in Wales. [118456]

  Mr. Hanson
  I regularly meet the Assembly Secretaries to discuss a variety of issues.

  There are currently 15 pilot areas in England covering a wide range of social and geographical circumstances that will allow for valid conclusions to be drawn for Wales.

  Once the pilots are completed, the National Assembly for Wales will take the opportunity to consider the information collected and whether or not the scheme should be introduced in Wales.

  Car Components Industry
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the consequences for the car components industry in Wales of the sale of Rover. [118457]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last week and have also discussed the Assembly's response with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. I am following with interest the work of the Task Force established by the Welsh Automotive Forum and the work of the West Midlands Task Force.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the impact of the 2000 Budget on small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales. [118460]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary and discuss a wide range of issues including the Budget and other related matters.

  The Chancellor's Budget is excellent news for Wales. It allows the National Assembly for Wales to provide extra resources to support enterprise including help via Welsh Training and Enterprise Councils for over 1,000 new business start-ups. The Budget also sets out a substantial

  Welsh Executive and Advisory non-departmental public bodies

  Number of members

  Name of body

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Executive Bodies

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  12

  12

  11

  12

  Arts Council of Wales

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  14

  13

  11

  13

  Countryside Council for Wales

  7

  8

  7

  12

  Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  13

  13

  13

  15

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  11

  12

  13

  12

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  11

  10

  10

  14

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  10

  11

  7

  10

  Housing for Wales

  6

  7

  1—

  1—

  Land Authority for Wales

  8

  8

  8

  8

  532W
  package of tax and spending measures that build on existing measures to help small and medium-sized enterprises up the ladder of opportunity.

  Transport
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the First Secretary to discuss the transport needs of Wales. [118461]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis, and discuss a wide range of issues, including the transport needs of Wales.

  As a result of the Chancellor's Budget, the Assembly will receive a total of £158 million additional funding in 2000–01. This has allowed the Assembly to announce additional funding of over £16 million to local authority integrated transport packages, safer community transport projects, the Transport Grant and many small-scale safety schemes.

  Waterhouse Inquiry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the former Welsh Office civil servant, Derek Brushett, attended any of the preliminary hearings held by Sir Ronald Waterhouse to discuss procedure with the North Wales child abuse inquiry on 10 September, 15 October, 26 November 1996 and 3 January 1997. [113486]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In so far as it can be established, there is no record of Mr. Brushett attending any of the preliminary hearings in his official capacity.

  An examination of the transcripts of evidence shows that he did not take part in any of the preliminary hearings.

  Quangos
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the quangos in Wales, and their membership, in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994, (d) 1995, (e) 1996, (f) 1997, (g) 1998 and (h) 1999. [116338]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information given in the table provides all available details.

  All non-departmental public bodies in Wales in existence between 1995 and 1999 are listed, with the number of members between 1995 and 1998 given where this information is available. Information is not held centrally before 1995, and is not yet available for 1999, as records are collected from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000.

  All of these bodies transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999.
  533W

  Welsh Executive and Advisory non-departmental public bodies

  Number of members

  Name of body

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  National Library of Wales

  3

  3

  3

  3

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Residuary Body for Wales

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  12

  10

  11

  8

  Sports Council for Wales

  14

  15

  15

  13

  Tai Cymru

  1—

  1—

  7

  7

  Wales Tourist Board

  6

  7

  7

  6

  Wales Youth Agency

  10

  3

  1—

  1—

  Welsh Development Agency

  8

  10

  11

  11

  Welsh Language Board

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  7

  6

  7

  7

  Advisory Bodies

  Advisory Committee for Wales (NRA)

  7

  8

  6

  9

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  24

  24

  22

  20

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  11

  10

  1—

  1—

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  9

  7

  7

  8

  Hill Farming Advisory Sub-Committee for Wales

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Library and Information Services Council

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Local Government Boundary Commission

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Mental Handicap Advisory Panel

  9

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Staff Commission for Wales

  6

  6

  1—

  1—

  Urban Investment Grant Appraisal Panel

  7

  6

  1—

  1—

  Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education

  9

  9

  9

  1—

  Welsh Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  9

  4

  1—

  11

  Welsh Dental Committee

  2—

  2—

  2—

  13

  Welsh Economic Council

  11

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  8

  7

  7

  8

  Welsh Medical Committee

  2—

  2—

  2—

  28

  Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee

  2—

  2—

  2—

  25

  Welsh Optometric Committee

  2—

  2—

  2—

  11

  Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee

  2—

  2—

  2—

  19

  Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Services

  14

  1

  1—

  1—

  Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee

  2—

  2—

  2—

  17

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol

  1—

  1—

  25

  24

  Social Services Inspectorate for Wales Advisory Group

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  1 Indicates that that particular body did not exist in the relevant year, and

  2 Indicates that the information is not available for that particular body in the relevant year

  Beef
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Agriculture Secretary with regard to ensuring that beef which is imported from Europe is not labelled as Welsh Beef. [118438]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My hon. Friend and I meet regularly with our colleagues in the National Assembly to discuss a range of issues including the agriculture sector. The Assembly subscribes to the voluntary Beef Labelling Scheme which operates in implementation of an EC Regulation, and traceability is a key feature. The labels must indicate the location where birth, rearing and slaughter took place and, though labelling itself is voluntary, the rules of the scheme should be adhered to if labelling is done. There are discussions taking place within the EU to finalise the precise structure of a compulsory scheme which it is anticipated will start to operate in September.

  A3XX Project
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the First Secretary and the National Assembly regarding the A3XX project. [118453]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and have discussed a range of issues, including BAE and Broughton. I am delighted that BAE have been successful in attracting £530 million of launch investment.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the prospects for the Welsh livestock industry. [118442]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a range of issues including the Welsh livestock industry. This was also addressed at the Prime Minister's Agriculture Summit on 30 March which agreed the package of support and measures for the farming industry. In Wales £14.7 million
  535W
  goes to the Less Favoured Areas while £10.6 million agrimonetary compensation goes to dairy, beef and sheep farmers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BMW/Rover
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the requests he made for meetings with(a) the Chairman of BMW, (b) the Chairman of Rover, (c) the Chief Executive of BMW and (d) the Chief Executive of Rover between 1 November and 29 March; [117565]

  (2) if he will list the meetings and telephone conversations he had with (a) the Chairman of BMW, (b) the Chairman of Rover, (c) the Chief Executive of BMW and (d) the Chief Executive of Rover between 1 November and 29 March; [117566]

  (3) if he will list the requests his Department made for information to BMW and Rover between 1 November and 29 March, indicating the date in each case. [117556]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 14 April 2000,Official Report, columns 289–90W, to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be able to award regional selective assistance in Britain under an approved map. [118086]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: Payments under offers of regional selective assistance made on or before 31 December 1999 continue to be made. New offers are being made subject to approval of the Assisted Areas Map by the College of Commissioners.

  Post Offices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Crown post offices, (b) franchised post offices and (c) sub-post offices there were in each constituency in (i) 1989 and (ii) 1999. [118772]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that they do not hold historical data for the types and numbers of post offices by parliamentary constituency. I have obtained from the Post Office a list of the information as at 1 October 1999, the latest date available, and have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  World of Leather
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of possible job losses as a result of the World of Leather chain going into receivership. [118897]

  Dr. Howells
  I am deeply concerned about any job losses that may arise as a consequence of the present difficulties of Uno Plc ("World of Leather"). My officials 536W
  have been in contact with the administrators of Uno Plc and trade associations in both the furniture manufacturing and leather tanning sectors.

  It is hoped that other furniture retailers will acquire the majority of the stores from which Uno Plc traded, although the number of staff who will be offered continued employment by the businesses acquiring those stores is presently not known.

  The furniture manufacturing industry has indicated that the short term effects on employment are likely to be limited, although I understand that there have already been closures of two furniture manufacturers as a direct result of the administration of Uno Plc. Concerns have been expressed about employment in the medium term in the sector, not least arising from the effect any adverse publicity will have on consumer confidence.

  The leather tanning industry has indicated that there is unlikely to be an impact upon employment in that sector.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which the actions of the World of Leather chain towards its customers in the month prior to its going into receivership complied with consumer protection legislation. [118896]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the joint administrators of the company are obliged to report to me within six months of the administration order on the conduct of the directors of Uno Plc ("World of Leather"). In particular, schedule 1 to that Act requires the administrators, in making their report, to have regard to certain matters including the extent of the directors' responsibility for any failure by the company to supply any goods or services which have been paid for (in whole or in part). The contents of the administrators' report will be given careful consideration by my officials in the Disqualification Unit of the Insolvency Service.

  Additionally, my officials continue to be in contact with the joint administrators of Uno Plc in response to specific concerns raised about the affairs leading to the administration of the company.

  If there is any evidence that more general consumer protection legislation has been breached it will be for the appropriate authorities to consider whether to undertake an investigation.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts for(a) Thorp and (b) the Sellafield MOX plant have been signed by British Nuclear Fuels for each plant respectively. [119153]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Contracts and contracted terms between British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and its customers for the supply of goods and services are commercial matters for the parties concerned.

  BNFL has contracts with customers in the UK and Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Canada to reprocess spent nuclear fuel at the Thorp plant.
  537W
  As regards contracts for the Sellafield MOX plant, I refer my hon. Friend to the report produced by PA Consulting for the Environment Agency, entitled "Assessment of BNFL's Economic Case for the Sellafield Mox Plant", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  BNFL is continuing to pursue reprocessing and MOX fuel business opportunities.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to advise Ofgem to take action against gas suppliers which breach Standard Condition 2 of the Gas Suppliers' Licence; and if he will make a statement. [118931]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 April 2000]: It is for Ofgem to determine whether enforcement action against suppliers for breach of Standard Condition 2 is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bring to the attention of the Director General of Ofgem the matter raised by the hon Member.

  Shareholder Remedies
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce the results of his Department's consultation on its document, "Shareholder Remedies"; and if he will make a statement on what action he intends to take. [119024]

  Dr. Howells
  The results of the Department's consultation on "Shareholder Remedies" are being considered in the wider context of the Company Law Review. The Steering Group of the Company Law Review published a further consultation document last month—"Developing the Framework"—which included sections on shareholders and shareholder remedies. A copy of that document was made available to the House: it can also be accessed on the Department's website.

  Newspaper Industry
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to investigate the level of competition in the wholesale newspaper industry. [119251]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading has a general responsibility to keep under review the carrying on of commercial activities in the UK. He has powers to investigate and to act where he has concerns about anti-competitive behaviour.

  If anyone has evidence to suggest anti-competitive behaviour in the wholesale newspaper market they should inform the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Nuclear Safeguards Bill
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirements will be placed upon British Nuclear Fuels to allow access by safeguards inspectors to United Kingdom-owned or originated plutonium held at BNFL sites as a result of the enactment of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill[Lords]. [119255]
  538W
  Dr. Howells
  None. Under the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement and the Euratom Treaty, British Nuclear Fuels are already required to allow access by safeguards inspectors to all civil nuclear material they hold, including plutonium.

  Rover
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of Rover Longbridge(a) outside the West Midlands and (b) in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [119284]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Much will depend on the outcome of BMW's negotiations with Alchemy or any other potential purchaser. These are ongoing. The Rover Task Force will be submitting an interim report to the Government shortly.

  However, until these discussions are concluded and it becomes clearer what the full implications of the acquisition might be, it would be imprudent to draw conclusions about the effect that reduced working at Longbridge might have elsewhere in the UK.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for areas outside the West Midlands which will be affected by the closure of the Longbridge Rover plant to receive financial assistance for retraining and employment creation; and if he will make a statement. [119285]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government will consider this in the light of the interim report from the Rover Task Force, which will be published shortly.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what purposes the Government's aid package for employment in relation to Rover will be allocated, broken down between(a) retraining the work force, (b) grants to attract new business, (c) support for the eventual owners of Rover and (d) other purposes. [119201]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 April 2000]: Decisions on the allocation of the aid package will be informed by the recommendations of the Task Force. I expect to receive their interim report in the near future.

  Longbridge
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what money will be available in Worcestershire for reinvestment and retraining from the first £129 million package for Longbridge. [118696]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 17 March that the Government would contribute £129 million to support projects aimed at economic regeneration, job creation, and to deal with the consequences of BMW's decision in relation to Rover.

  Export Controls
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export licences granted for strategic exports from the UK from 1 January to(a) Zimbabwe, (b) Uganda, (c) Rwanda, (d) Burundi, (e) Angola and (f) Namibia. [118946]
  539W
  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 2000 and 5 April 2000, 15 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs), and no Open Individual Export Licences, were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in the specified countries of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. One SIEL covered the export to Angola of goods with the rating PL5033, one SIEL covered the export to Uganda of goods with the rating PL5031, and 13 SIELs covered exports to Zimbabwe; information on the SIELs covering exports for Zimbabwe is set out in the table. Licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings; where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 2000 and 5 April 2000 covering the export to Zimbabwe of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Goods covered by the SIEL

  ML1

  4

  ML2

  1

  ML6

  1

  ML10

  7

  PL5017

  1

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  In addition, Uganda and Zimbabwe are permitted destinations on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 1995 and 1 May 1997 covering the export to the specified countries of goods on the Military List

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Rating

  India

  Indonesia

  Kuwait

  Malaysia

  Pakistan

  Saudi Arabia

  Yemen

  Zimbabwe

  ML1

  26

  5

  25

  23

  75

  21

  1

  37

  ML2

  12

  6

  6

  34

  5

  4

  0

  2

  ML3

  31

  4

  12

  5

  27

  6

  1

  5

  ML4

  18

  1

  8

  37

  18

  5

  0

  2

  ML5

  42

  7

  16

  24

  9

  7

  0

  1

  ML6

  9

  26

  12

  40

  8

  12

  0

  4

  ML7

  5

  2

  9

  13

  4

  2

  0

  1

  ML8

  4

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ML9

  106

  1

  5

  11

  35

  7

  1

  0

  ML10

  491

  41

  29

  52

  33

  15

  0

  15

  ML11

  180

  33

  34

  76

  47

  51

  7

  3

  ML13

  4

  8

  2

  6

  13

  3

  0

  0

  ML14

  6

  7

  5

  16

  3

  1

  0

  0

  ML15

  25

  11

  16

  17

  10

  11

  0

  1

  ML16

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML17

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML18

  42

  1

  2

  1

  20

  2

  0

  0

  ML21

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML22

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML23

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  540W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the most recent export licence for defence-related equipment was issued for export to(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Kuwait, (c) Malaysia, (d) Zimbabwe, (e) Indonesia, (f) Iran, (g) Pakistan, (h) Yemen and (j) India; what each was for; how many licences for exports to each of those countries were granted in the last five years, and for what purpose; and if he will make a statement. [119479]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1995 and 1 May 1997, 2,376 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in the specified countries of goods listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. In this period there were no such SIELs issued to Iran.

  As regards export licences granted for the export of military goods to the specified countries between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1998, details of export licensing decisions in this period were set out in the Government's Annual Reports published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in March and November 1999. The Reports give details of the military equipment licensed for export during the periods as well as the ratings of these goods. Similar details of the military equipment licensed in later years will be set out in the relevant Annual Reports.

  As regards licences granted since 1 January 1999, the Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1999 and 5 April 2000, 1,221 SIELs have been issued covering the export of goods on the Military List. A breakdown of the licences issued between 1 January 1995 and 1 May 1997 and between 1 January 1999 and 5 April 2000 are set out in the tables.

  Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings; where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.
  541W

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 1995 and 1 May 1997 covering the export to the specified countries of goods on the Military List

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Rating

  India

  Indonesia

  Kuwait

  Malaysia

  Pakistan

  Saudi Arabia

  Yemen

  Zimbabwe

  ML24

  1

  5

  2

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  PL5001

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5002

  1

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  2

  PL5006

  7

  4

  0

  7

  0

  1

  0

  0

  PL5017

  15

  1

  6

  7

  11

  4

  0

  1

  PL5018

  10

  0

  14

  6

  12

  4

  2

  42

  PL5021

  32

  0

  6

  1

  4

  0

  2

  4

  PL5027

  2

  3

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  PL5028

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  PL5030

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  PL5031

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 1999 and 5 April 2000 covering the export to the specified countries of goods on the Military List

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Rating

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Kuwait

  Malaysia

  Pakistan

  Saudi Arabia

  Yemen

  Zimbabwe

  ML1

  9

  2

  0

  4

  11

  2

  2

  0

  6

  ML2

  6

  2

  0

  3

  10

  1

  2

  0

  8

  ML3

  9

  3

  0

  1

  9

  1

  3

  0

  1

  ML4

  7

  0

  0

  7

  8

  6

  3

  0

  0

  ML5

  116

  3

  0

  7

  12

  4

  4

  1

  0

  ML6

  8

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  1

  0

  2

  ML7

  1

  1

  0

  10

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ML9

  60

  2

  0

  4

  7

  8

  5

  0

  0

  ML10

  490

  11

  0

  5

  23

  11

  5

  0

  8

  ML11

  111

  2

  2

  9

  29

  7

  10

  1

  1

  ML13

  10

  0

  1

  0

  6

  1

  1

  0

  1

  ML14

  6

  1

  0

  3

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  ML15

  7

  1

  0

  5

  8

  2

  3

  0

  0

  ML16

  16

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  ML17

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  ML18

  7

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  ML21

  6

  0

  0

  1

  9

  0

  2

  0

  0

  ML22

  15

  0

  0

  5

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  PL5001

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5006

  5

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5014

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5017

  30

  0

  0

  7

  13

  5

  4

  0

  3

  PL5018

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Date of most recent SIEL and rating

  3/4/2000 ML1, PL5017

  21/3/2000 ML10

  25/5/1999 ML13

  22/3/2000 PL5001

  29/3/2000 ML2

  6/10/1999 ML22

  4/4/2000 ML1

  26/6/1999 ML11

  28/3/1999 ML2

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  As regards Open Individual Export Licences, I shall write to the Member as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  In addition, India, Kuwait, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe are permitted destinations on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Finally, it would entail disproportionate cost to compile information on the end-user for all of the licences shown in the Tables, and to make any inquiries necessary under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  542W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to register arms brokers before autumn 2000; and if he will make a statement. [119052]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: The Government will announce their proposals for new export control legislation, including proposals on trafficking and brokering, following conclusion of the review of the proposals in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989) in the light of the responses received. The Government are committed to introducing new legislation on strategic export controls when time is available in the legislative programme.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average payment made per client to date to each firm of solicitors in Yorkshire involved in the compensation claims for(a) chest disease and (b) vibration white finger. [119406]
  543W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is given in the table.

  Solicitor

  Number of claims settled

  Total fees (£)

  Average fee payment made per claim (£)

  (a) Chest Disease:

  Ashton Morton Slack

  10

  8,656.25

  865.63

  Attey Dibb and Clegg

  6

  6,345.00

  1,057.50

  Beresford's

  5

  5,287.50

  1,057.50

  Burton Green Williamson

  1

  1,057.50

  1,057.50

  Elliott Mother

  2

  2,115.00

  1,057.50

  Frank Allen Pennington

  1

  1,377.50

  1,377.50

  Graysons

  291

  307,516.38

  1,056.76

  Hickmotts

  5

  5,287.50

  1,057.50

  Hopkins

  41

  46,038.50

  1,122.89

  Irwin Mitchell

  63

  66,622.50

  1,057.50

  John E. Millar and Company

  2

  2,115.00

  1,057.50

  Keeble Hawson Moorhouse

  32

  33,840.00

  1,057.50

  Malcolm C. Foy

  1

  1,057.50

  1,057.50

  Nelson and Co.

  5

  5,561.96

  1,112.39

  Oxley and Coward

  4

  4,300.35

  1,075.09

  Raleys

  227

  240,068.50

  1,057.57

  Saffmans

  8

  9,584.02

  1,198.00

  Simpson Millar

  2

  2,115.00

  1,057.50

  The Beaumont Partnership

  1

  1,057.50

  1,057.50

  Thompsons

  47

  47,675.70

  1,014.38

  Towells

  85

  88,470.29

  1,040.83

  W. Brook and Co.

  1

  1,057.50

  1,057.50

  (b) Vibration White Finger:

  Alfred Sevier and Sons

  1

  952.75

  952.75

  Arthur Jackson and Co.

  3

  5,011.39

  1,670.46

  Ashton Morton Slack

  168

  106,729.74

  635.30

  Atherton and Godfrey1

  2

  7,796.63

  3,898.33

  Attey Dibb and Clegg1

  188

  228,938.08

  1,217.76

  Bell Wright and Dallman

  1

  929.00

  929.00

  Beresfords

  10

  15,803.07

  1,580.31

  Burton Green Williamson

  1

  1,193.75

  1,193.75

  Elliott Mather

  1

  1,946.00

  1,946.00

  Frank Allen Pennington

  91

  80,837.72

  888.33

  Graysons

  120

  115,305.16

  960.88

  Hickmotts1

  22

  26,075.83

  1,185.27

  Hopkins1

  20

  43,157.54

  2,157.88

  Ian Smith and Co.

  1

  806.23

  806.23

  Irwin Mitchell1

  104

  113,473.04

  1,091.09

  Jack Thornley and Partners1

  1

  917.50

  917.50

  John E. Millar and Company1

  1

  5,130.35

  5,130.35

  Kate Patterson1

  1

  5,916.07

  5,916.07

  Keeble Hawson Moorhouse1

  111

  99,114.52

  892.92

  Kenyon Son and Craddock

  1

  705.00

  705.00

  Mills Kemp and Brown

  2

  4,400.12

  2,200.06

  Moorish and Co.

  9

  11,104.87

  1,233.87

  Newman and Bond

  1

  976.80

  976.80

  Noonan and Co.

  1

  1,202.50

  1,202.50

  Oxley and Coward

  237

  228,158.17

  962.69

  Parker Rhodes

  15

  13,154.53

  876.97

  Peace and Co.

  2

  2,459.09

  1,229.55

  Raleys1

  571

  548,047.99

  959.80

  Rowley Ashworth

  2

  2,215.00

  1,107.50

  Saffmans1

  105

  116,782.61

  1,112.22

  Taylor Bracewell

  1

  831.47

  831.47

  Towells

  116

  103,088.13

  888.69

  Wake Smith

  4

  2,853.91

  713.48

  Whittles1

  4

  2,191.59

  2,191.59

  1 Include fees paid in relation to individually negotiated litigated claims which were settled outside the Handling Arrangement agreed between the Department and Claimants' solicitors.

  Note:

  All fees include Interest and Solicitors' Disbursements

  Mobile Phone Networks
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to delay the final rounds of bidding for the new mobile phone networks until after the Stewart report is published. [119688]
  544W
  Ms Hewitt
  Bidders in the auction of Wireless Telegraphy Act Licences for Third Generation mobile telecommunications spectrum have been kept informed of the progress of the work of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. The Government understand that the Group expects to deliver its report to the Government some time after Easter. It is planned to publish the report soon after receipt by the Government although definite dates have yet to be decided. If the auction is still in progress it is not proposed to hold any rounds between the receipt of the report by Government and its publication unless all remaining Bidders agree otherwise.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has chosen to re-tender the new round of bidding for the mobile phone network. [119687]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have no plans to re-auction Wireless Telegraphy Act Licences for 3G mobile telecommunications spectrum.

  Research Intensity (Imported Goods)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the United Kingdom market for(a) high research-intensity goods, (b) medium research-intensity goods and (c) low research-intensity goods was represented by imports in the last 12 months. [119593]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available) imports equalled 74 per cent. of UK domestic sales of high technology goods. As well as finished goods, these imports include components and sub-assemblies, a significant proportion of which are incorporated in UK exports (UK exports of high technology goods were £38 billion in 1996, while imports were £36 billion).

  In the medium-high technology sector imports equalled 51 per cent. of UK domestic sales while medium-low technology and low-technology imports both equalled 25 per cent. of domestic sales.

  Synchrotron
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the Government preferred Didcot to Daresbury for the synchrotron. [119315]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 21 March 2000, Official Report, column 480W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department's Ministers decided that Didcot was the best site for the synchrotron. [119313]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: After considering all the relevant factors.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department first wrote to Wellcome suggesting Didcot for the synchrotron. [119316]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the evidence given to the Science and Technology Select Committee by the Director General of the Research Councils on 8 December 1999 and by the Director of the Wellcome Trust on 15 December 1999.
  545W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the correspondence between his Department and Wellcome over the location of the new synchrotron. [119314]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: The correspondence between my Department and the Wellcome Trust contains information given in confidence and as such is exempt from disclosure under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners from(a) Scotland and (b) the UK claiming compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have died before their claims were fully processed. [119558]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 10 April IRISC, the Department's claims handler, had been informed of 4,203 claims where the date of death recorded occurred since the date of claim. Of these 341 are in Scotland.

  In all these cases the claims will be continued by the claimant's widow or dependants. In addition, where the claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory diseases for which British Coal were found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the Department will also make a bereavement award to the claimant's widow.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the claims received from ex-miners in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK for compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been fully processed. [119559]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 9 April, the Department had made a total of 1,949 full and final payments totalling some £5.4 million, of which 345 totalling £900,000 have been to Scottish ex-miners. In addition, the Department has made a further 18,000 interim and bereavement award payments totalling £50.6 million, of which 1,308 totalling £3.1 million have been to Scottish ex-miners and their families.

  Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Consumer Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 13 April; and if he will make a statement. [119587]

  Dr. Howells
  The Council adopted a Resolution to establish a Community-wide network for settlement of consumer disputes. This European extra-judicial network will be known as EEJ-Net.

  The Commission presented its strategy paper for boosting consumer confidence in e-commerce through encouragement of business best practice (in particular the development of codes of practice), effective out of court dispute settlement (EEJ-Net) and guaranteed access to legal redress through the courts in the consumer's own member state.
  546W
  An orientation debate was held on the Commission's proposals for a European Food Safety Agency following last year's Food Safety White Paper; the Commission is now considering delegates' comments with a view to presenting formal proposals in September/October.

  The Commission presented reports on the implementation and enforcement of both the Timeshare and Package Travel Directives and on progress in the negotiations for a Directive on the Distance Marketing of Financial Services.

  The Presidency described plans for a forthcoming conference on globalisation, regulation and self-regulation. Denmark presented ideas for a new strategy to strengthen consumer policy in the EU.

  Oil and Gas Exploration (Scotland)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will suspend new drilling for oil and gas in the seas west of Scotland until the full implementation of the European Habitats Directive. [119592]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No. I am of the view that all existing consents to drill oil and gas wells to the west of Scotland are compatible with the requirements of the Habitats Directive. It has been concluded after extensive study and consultation that these wells are unlikely to have significant impacts on the environment generally and in particular any species or sites that might be protected under the Directive or indeed any other wildlife in the area.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2000,Official Report, column 476W, if he will place a copy of the English translation of the Kansai report in the Library. [119681]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have arranged for copies of the unofficial English translation of Kansai Electric's interim report on its investigation into the falsification of quality assurance data for MOX to be placed in the Library of the House. This translation of its report has not been approved by Kansai Electric.

  Domestic Gas Supply
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many houses in the UK he estimates are not connected to the domestic gas supply network; which(a) regions and (b) constituencies have the highest proportion of such houses; and what plans he has to encourage gas suppliers to increase connections. [119603]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 April 2000]: The information requested is not held centrally. The question of gas suppliers increasing connections is one for the Director General of Gas and Electricity Markets. He has duties under the Gas Act 1986 (as amended) to exercise his relevant functions to ensure that reasonable demands for gas conveyed through pipes are met where it is economical, and that there is effective competition in the conveyance of gas to new areas. There are some seven Public Gas Transporters (PGTs). A consumer seeking a gas connection can either seek a connection from a PGT, purchase and lay the pipe himself, or his PGT can use

  547W
  the system of supplemental charges whereby the cost of connection is recovered over a protracted period through an additional charge on each unit of gas supplied.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many suppliers of liquid petroleum gas operate in the UK; what is the market share of each; what was the average price per litre of gas supplied in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what plans he has to bring this market within the remit of the regulator. [119604]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 April 2000]: There are around 16 liquid petroleum gas (LPG) suppliers in the UK. On the market share of individual companies, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 775W.

  The average price paid for LPG by manufacturing industry in Great Britain in 1999 is provisionally estimated at £145.11 per tonne. My Department regularly publishes quarterly estimates of prices paid by manufacturing industry for LPG in the monthly bulletin "Energy Trends".

  There are no plans to bring the LPG market within the remit of the gas regulator, the Director General of Gas Supply.

  Communications Reform
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on consultation on the Communications Reform White Paper. [120232]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I encourage anyone with ideas or thoughts on the substance of the White Paper to submit them to us, either in writing or via our e-mail address consultation@communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk
  by 23 June 2000.

  Unless contributors make clear that they do not want their contributions to be published, we intend to place most of the material submitted to us on our website. We hope that this will generate further comment and debate as we prepare the main messages of the White Paper.

  Fireworks Injuries
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the fireworks injuries statistics for 1999; and if he will make a statement. [120231]

  Dr. Howells
  The total number of persons recorded as attending hospital casualty departments in Great Britain during the 1999 bonfire night period was 1,056. This represents an increase of just over 21 per cent. on the previous year's total of 831. However, injuries in 1999 were still at a lower level than those recorded in the mid 1990s. Also firework sales were approximately 40 per cent. higher in 1999 than for the same period in 1998.

  During the millennium period 327 persons required treatment at hospital casualty departments. This suggests that the Government's warning about the dangers of mixing alcohol and fireworks was taken very much to heart.
  548W
  There were no deaths from fireworks in 1999.

  I am arranging for draft copies of the injury figures together with the analytical and regional tables to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as well as on the DTI website (www.dti.gov.uk) and hard copies will be published shortly as will details of the millennium injuries.

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to conduct the quinquennial review of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. [120230]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In line with the Government's policy of reviewing Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies at regular intervals, my Department intends to conduct the quinquennial review of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) during the course of this year with the aim of completing it by the end of March 2001. This is five years after the UKAEA assumed its current form following the separation of AEA Technology. The review will be forward-looking, open to external input and take full account of the views of all stakeholders.

  The quinquennial review will be conducted in two stages. The first will look at options for the future delivery of functions provided by the UKAEA. The second will consider future performance requirements for delivery of those functions. In both cases the focus will be on corporate organisational and strategic issues, not on specific site-related operational matters. A copy of the terms of reference for the review has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The review will be carried out by my officials with advice from a Steering Board chaired by the Director General of Energy in my Department. The Board will include representatives of UKAEA, other Government Departments and external, independent members with relevant knowledge and expertise. UKAEA customers, staff, trade unions and all other interested parties will have the opportunity to contribute to the review. I very much hope they will do so.

  Further information on the review, including how to contribute, can be obtained from the UKAEA Quinquennial Review Team, Department of Trade and Industry, Room 107, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET or from the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk. Comments on the review and requests for further information can also be sent to ukaeareview.comment@dti.gov.uk.

  The review will be carried out as openly as possible and the results of each stage made public. Contributors to the review should make clear whether they have any objections to publication of their comments, including publication on the DTI website.

  Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 2000–01. [120295]

  Mr. Byers
  I have set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following quality of service and efficiency targets for 2000–01:
  549W
  Financial Targets
  To report a break-even situation in the Income and Expenditure Account 2000–01.
  To meet the net vote target in 2000–01.
  To ensure that total overhead costs are less than 55 per cent. of total costs.
  To increase non-DTI income by 15 per cent.

  Operational Targets
  To complete 90 per cent. of European type approvals within 10 weeks.
  To complete all European type approvals within an average of seven weeks.
  To complete 95 per cent. of all calibration jobs (including preparation of certificates) within 18 working days of acceptance of the work and to achieve an average completion time of less than 14 days.
  To meet 70 per cent. of the milestones by their due date in the work programme agreed between the NMSPU and NWML.
  80 per cent. of customers rate NWML's provision of services as satisfactory or better.
  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive.
  Chief Executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  I have placed copies of the Corporate Plan in the Libraries of the House.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 537W, what plans he has to set separate renewable energy generation targets for each of the UK standard regions; and if he will make a statement. [119692]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government Offices for the Regions are initiating work to prepare regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision based upon, and where necessary updating, existing resource studies. On 9 February, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) published "Guidance on Preparing Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks". The guidance indicated that the Government hope that the frameworks will draw upon this work and elaborate a regional approach to renewable energy, including regional targets flowing from the assessments of each region's capacity to generate electricity from a range of different sources. The Government would like to see frameworks in place in all regions by the end of 2000.

  The frameworks will work alongside Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) and Regional Development Agencies' Economic Strategies in promoting sustainable development. We are encouraging regional planning bodies to set targets in RPG for the structure plan and unitary development plan areas within the region consistent with the regional targets provided by the regional sustainable development frameworks. Advice on this will be set out in the final version of the revised "Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 11: Regional Planning" to be published by DETR shortly.

  Together with the national planning policy guidance in "PPP 22: Renewable Energy", RPG—as taken forward through structure plans and Part 1 unitary development plans—will provide a strategic framework for policies and
  550W
  proposals for renewable energy development in local plans, including the identification in those plans of suitable sites. This, in turn, will feed through to decisions on individual planning applications.

  More positive planning at regional and local levels will contribute to greater public familiarity with, and acceptance of, prospective renewable energy developments. It remains important, however, for operators to prepare the ground with local authorities, environmental organisations and local people before formal planning applications are submitted and to develop proposals in consultation with them.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Statistics
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of pensioners entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of the Budget in(a) the Basildon parliamentary constituency, (b) Basildon and (c) Thurrock. [117053]

  Mr. Bayley
  The number of pensioners who will benefit from the recent increases in benefit rates is listed in the table.

  Number of pensioners currently entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee

  Number

  Basildon parliamentary constituency

  2,700

  Basildon local authority

  4,400

  Thurrock local authority

  2,800

  Source:

  November 1999 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry

  We also estimate that over 500,000 pensioners in total will benefit from the increased capital limits in the Minimum Income Guarantee, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Estimates of pensioners newly entitled to benefit because of these changes are not available at constituency level.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people on Incapacity Benefit have, under the innovation schemes established as part of the New Deal for the Disabled,.(a) had any contact with one of the schemes, (b) applied for one of the schemes, (c) joined one of the schemes, (d) completed a placement with one of the schemes, (e) found part-time employment as a result of participation in one of the schemes and (f) found full-time employment as a result of participation in one of the schemes. [118607]

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

  Up until 29 February, which is the latest date for which information is available:

  6,055 people have applied to join New Deal for Disabled People Innovative schemes;

  3,079 people have been accepted onto these schemes;
  551W
  494 people are in, or have completed work trials;

  607 people have started work;

  Other disabled people have been assisted by the New Deal for Disabled People Personal Adviser pilots.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners with a final level of income below that to which they could be entitled if they could claim the Minimum Income Guarantee are disqualified from claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee. [119210]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners with income below Minimum Income Guarantee levels, disqualified due to full-time work or excess capital

  Capital

  All pensioners

  Excluding workers

  0 to 3,000

  25,000

  0

  3,001 to 8,000

  50,000

  45,000

  8,001 to 12,000

  70,000

  65,000

  12,001 to 16,000

  20,000

  20,000

  Over 16,000

  90.000

  85,000

  Total

  255,000

  215,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 2000–01 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Cases are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  3. The number of cases have been calculated using the Pensioner Income Series Data based on the 1997–98 FRS and the Policy Simulation Model (PSM) for Income Related benefits, based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey data.

  4. Workers include pensioners and/or their partners who are in full-time work.

  Recovery of Overpayments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the Debt Accounting and Management system; and when the installation was cancelled. [119212]

  Angela Eagle
  Administration of benefits and recovery of overpayment is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 18 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent question asking what was the cost of the Debt Accounting and Management System (DAMS) and when the installation was cancelled.
  The costs of DAMS are commercial in confidence.
  The DAMS procurement contract with EDS was discharged in July 1999.
  552W
  EDS is contracted to provide information systems IT service delivery support to the Department. This contract has not been terminated.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Capital Rules
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of amending the capital rules for disabled people to match the new level announced for pensioners. [119250]

  Mr. Bayley
  The cost of increasing the capital limits to £6,000 and £12,000 in the income related benefits for disabled people would be £25 million.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many initial invitation letters have been sent to lone parents in the target group for the New Deal for Lone Parents. [119248]

  Angela Eagle
  514,821 initial invitation letters were sent to lone parents in the target group from July 1997 to January 2000, the latest figures available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents whose youngest child is aged five years and three months or over are in receipt of Income Support. [119245]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of lone parents on Income Support in Great Britain with a youngest child aged five years and three months or over is 470,000.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 1999.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents, under the New Deal for Lone Parents, have secured employment in each month since the scheme began, broken down into(a) target and (b) non-target groups. [119247]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Information for National Phase—October 1998 to January 2000

  National Programme

  Target group

  Non-target group

  Total1

  October 1998

  16

  7

  23

  November 1998

  802

  533

  1,353

  December 1998

  492

  382

  884

  January 1999

  792

  628

  1,427

  February 1999

  1,139

  883

  2,030

  March 1999

  1,382

  989

  2,383

  April 1999

  1,866

  1,314

  3,190

  May 1999

  1,527

  1,029

  2,569

  June 1999

  1,381

  898

  2,290

  July 1999

  1,463

  1,019

  2,495

  August 1999

  1,122

  750

  1,887

  September 1999

  1,502

  1,010

  2,525

  October 1999

  2,924

  2,248

  5,198

  November 1999

  2,577

  1,910

  4,509

  December 1999

  1,319

  1,124

  2,459

  January 2000

  1,307

  800

  2,133

  Total

  21,611

  15,524

  237,355

  1 The total column includes those for whom target/non-target is not recorded, for this reason the columns do not sum to the total

  2 The total figure differs from the total figure quoted in the Statistical First Release (SFR) due to rounding in the SFR.

  553W
  During phase 1 (July 1997-October 1998) 2,473 target group and 920 non-target group lone parents obtained jobs1. In phase 2 (April 1998 to October 1998) a total of 2,878 lone parents obtained jobs2.

  1 Information is not available in the format requested for phases 1 and 2 because results were kept clerically and it is not possible to accurately break them down on a monthly basis.
  2 In some cases it was not recorded whether the lone parent was either from the target or non-target group, for this reason the figures cannot be split into these groups.

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119436]

  Angela Eagle
  So that the Cabinet Office can publish the spring 2000 report on monitoring progress towards delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005, we are currently collecting data which will include our progress on delivering 25 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2002.

  The Departmental website is undergoing immediate re-design to aid navigation to our key client groups: Families with Children, Working Age and Pensioners. There will also be access points providing information to support groups and journalists.

  Currently, however, the Department provides a range of services electronically that include the Child Care Information System, developed in conjunction with the Department for Education and Employment and the Scotland Office, providing comprehensive information on child care broken down into geographical areas. The Department provides consultation documents, forms and leaflets over the internet. Forms available for downloading include the Retirement Pensions application form and the Statutory Sick Pay/Incapacity Benefit claim pack; leaflets include "Approaching Retirement" and "Babies and Children".

  Data Matching
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his Department's data matching with respect to benefit fraud with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998; what representations he has received on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [119531]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department conducts data matching exercises, including services provided for local authorities, primarily to prevent and detect crime or where they are needed to provide important assistance in the proper administration of the Department's functions and the protection of public funds.

  In October 1998, we published a "Code of Practice for Data Matching" in consultation with the then Data Protection Registrar. The code sets out the safeguards, including procedural safeguards, which must be followed in data matching activity under the code. We believe that these safeguards and the processing itself conform with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (and the Human Rights Act 1998) and the Data Protection Act 1998.
  554W
  We have not received any representations about the Human Rights Act and the Department's data matching activities.

  Children in Poverty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were living in poverty in Shrewsbury and Atcham on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [119468]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave him on 20 March 2000,Official Report, columns 453–54W.

  The estimates in the answer provided on 20 March are the most recent available with the exception of estimates of the numbers of dependants aged under 16 included in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based) claims. Figures for February 1997, the nearest date prior to 1 May 1997, and November 1999, are given in the table.

  Number of dependants under age 16 included in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based) claims for Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Thousand

  February 1997

  2.9

  November 1999

  2.0

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are taken from the Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries for February 1997 and November 1999, which are point in time surveys based on a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance claimants.

  2. The figures include the unemployed who until 1996 were included in Income Support caseloads. Income Support for the unemployed was replaced by income-based Jobseeker's Allowance from October 1996.

  3. Numbers are based on sample cases and will therefore be subject to sampling error.

  4. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  5. The local authority district is assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant 1997 version 1 and 1999 version 2 postcode directories.

  Communication Aids
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance his Department can give to parents of children with communication difficulties for the provision of voice output communication aids; and if he will make a statement. [119230]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's Social Fund provides for one-off payments by way of grants or interest-free loans to people who are receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. These payments are intended to cover a variety of essential household items. The Social Fund does not meet special educational needs because it does not duplicate provision made by other Government Departments.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the CSA differentiates between absent parents and non-resident parents for the purposes of calculating payments. [119571]
  555W
  Angela Eagle
  Under the Child Support Act 1991, "absent parents" are defined as parents who do not live in the same household with their children. However, many parents who do not live with their children have regular contact with them, they are not in fact absent from their children's lives. Therefore under new legislation, currently before Parliament, the term "absent parent" will be replaced by the term "non-resident parent". In practice, there is no difference between an absent and non-resident parent in the calculation of child maintenance liability.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the CSA maintenance payment is calculated as a sum to be spent directly on the children concerned; and to what extent it includes a payment to the custodial parent for looking after the children. [119569]

  Angela Eagle
  The basis of the current, complex maintenance calculation is the maintenance requirement, which is intended to represent the basic amount that is needed to support the child. Where the qualifying child is aged 16 or less, the maintenance requirement includes an age-related premium to reflect the fact that a child needs someone to care for them.

  The complexity of the current formula makes it difficult for both parents to understand how maintenance has been worked out. In the new child support scheme, maintenance will be calculated according to the number of qualifying children. There will be no separate allowance for the cost of caring for the child.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the CSA takes to ensure that money paid to the custodial parents for child support is spent on the child. [119568]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency's (CSA) role is to establish maintenance liability and to calculate and collect child maintenance. It is for the parent with care to decide how best to use the money paid to support and care for her children: the CSA is not equipped to police family expenditure.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers the CSA has to check a parent's statement of income. [119573]

  Angela Eagle
  The current child support calculation requires a wide range of information to be obtained, including details about both parents' income. The current scheme can be frustrated by parents who fail to produce the information required. Parents may also provide false information, which can result in an incorrect assessment of liability.

  If the Child Support Agency cannot obtain information about earnings from the parent, they will contact the employer for the details. If the information is still not provided, a child support inspector can arrange to visit the employer. Currently there is no penalty for failure to provide information, but it is an offence to obstruct an inspector. For self-employed cases, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 gives the Child Support Agency access to information about earnings held by the Inland Revenue if all other measures have failed.

  The new child support scheme will require substantially less information. Liability will be based only on the non-resident parent's income and the number of children for whom he is responsible. However, to ensure that this
  556W
  information can be obtained in all cases, two new criminal offences are being introduced in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently before Parliament, for failure to provide information, or misrepresentation of facts. The offences will apply to anyone who fails to provide information or gives false information to the Child Support Agency, for which there will be a fine of up to £1,000 on conviction.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the CSA does not require non-resident parents to pay 25 per cent. of their income to the CSA. [119572]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the present scheme, non-resident parents can be assessed to pay up to 30 per cent. of their net income in current child maintenance. However, the specific percentages will vary in individual cases. Liability is assessed on the basis of a complex calculation taking account of a variety of factors, including housing costs and the circumstances of the non-resident parent's second family. Parents who owe arrears of maintenance may be required to pay up to 40 per cent. of their net income in a combination of current maintenance and arrears.

  Under the new child support scheme, maintenance assessments will be based on a simple percentage of the non-resident parent's net income: 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two, and 25 per cent. for three or more children. Allowance will be made for children in the non-resident parent's second family, for shared care arrangements if the non-resident parent has the child to stay for more than 52 nights a year, and for those on a low income. If the non-resident parent owes arrears, he may be asked to pay an extra 5 per cent. of his net income.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account the CSA takes when calculating maintenance requirements of money paid by the non-resident parent towards their children's maintenance. [119574]

  Angela Eagle
  Liability to pay child support maintenance usually begins on the day that the non-resident parent is told about the application for a maintenance calculation. However, there can be some delay between this date and the date the maintenance calculation is completed. Voluntary payments made by the non-resident parent during this period can reduce any arrears that have built up. But voluntary payments are not defined and currently have no statutory basis, which means that the Child Support Agency uses discretion in what might be considered an acceptable payment towards child maintenance. New legislation, currently before Parliament, will give statutory recognition to such payments.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the new formula for calculating maintenance assessments for the Child Support Agency; and on what date the new formula will come into force. [119752]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to introduce the new child support scheme for new cases by April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred at a later date, once we are sure that the new system is working well.
  557W
  In the new child support scheme, the amount of child maintenance to be paid will be based on a simple percentage of the non-resident parent's net income. The basic rate will be 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two and 25 per cent. for three or more. The amount of maintenance will be reduced if the non-resident parent shares the care of the child for 52 nights a week or more a year, has a second family or if his income is low. And either parent will be able to apply for a variation in liability to reflect truly exceptional circumstances.

  The White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities" (Cm 4349) sets out the detailed arrangements and contains tables showing what the basic liability will be at different levels of income.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119545]

  Angela Eagle
  This Department's policy is to follow the guidance on advertising given in the Framework policy and guidelines for the use, management and design of public sector websites, laid down by CITU (Central Information Technology Unit).

  This Department does not presently carry advertising on its websites.

  The Appeals Service, which is one of the Department's Agencies, does have a list of links to commercial legal sites which are considered most useful to those that may use the site but these links are not there on a basis of any commercial agreement.

  Guillain-Barré Syndrome
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the eligibility for disability benefit of people suffering from(a) the effects of GuiIlain-Barré syndrome and (b) long-term disability produced by Guillain-Barré syndrome. [119777]

  Mr. Bayley
  People with Guillain-Barré syndrome are eligible for Social Security benefits on the same basis as people with other disabling conditions.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people suffering from the(a) effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome and (b) long-term disability produced by Guillain-Barré syndrome were awarded disability living allowance in each year since 1997. [119778]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that local education authorities are able to provide the necessary matched funding to enable schools to take advantage of money provided through the standards fund. [117648]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requirement for local education authorities to contribute to the Standards Fund was allowed for in the 5.4 per cent. increase in education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) for 2000–01. Most authorities have accepted in full the Standards Fund grants. In addition, Northamptonshire's schools will receive over £4 million as its share of the £290 million funding increase announced in the budget: from £3,000 for the smallest primary school, to £50,000 for the largest secondary school, to use as they see fit to drive up standards further. They will also benefit from their share of the £50 million extra in grant which we announced in November for general support of school budgets.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to have transferred to his Department from the DETR, funding arrangements for schools in England; and if he will make a statement; [119686]

  (2) what plans he has to fund schools directly from his Department; and if he will make a statement. [119685]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government intend to issue a Green Paper in the summer which will address the future funding of local authorities, including options for the funding of education.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current annual level of public expenditure on the statutory and voluntary youth services, guidance and educational welfare; and if he will make a statement on the amount of such spending to be(a) retained, (b) transferred to the ConneXions service and (c) made available to ConneXions as additional public expenditure. [117245]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The provisional figure for the level of expenditure by local authorities in England on the Youth Service in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available, is £267 million. It includes grants and services to the voluntary youth sector from local authority youth services. In addition, the Department for Education and Employment provides £4 million per annum to the voluntary youth services through the National Voluntary Youth Organisation Grant Scheme. Public expenditure on the careers service in England, in 1999–2000, is expected to be £228 million and on the New Start initiative, £5.8 million. Public expenditure on the Educational Welfare Service in England, in 1999–2000, is expected to be £80.5 million.

  The resources for the ConneXions Service will come from the bringing together of existing resources devoted to youth support and guidance. The whole of the current careers service and New Start budgets will be routed

  559W
  through the ConneXions Service. Other services will contribute to ConneXions in practical ways without a formal transfer of resources.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is his estimate of the cost of the human resource audit referred to in Chapter 6 of the paper, "ConneXions"; [119277]

  (2) when he expects to (a) commence and (b) complete the audit of the human resource implications of existing and additional advice and support services provided by his Department and other agencies, referred to in Chapter 6 of the paper, "ConneXions". [119276]

  Mr. Wicks
  Following the publication of the "ConneXions" document, officials from a number of Government Departments are currently undertaking an audit of the human resource implications of a range of new and existing advice and support services for young people. This study will inform the ConneXions Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group's strategy for implementing the Service and the Year 2000 Spending Review.

  The estimated cost of consulting with external partners, including the cost of a specialist consultant, is £15,500.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons he expects to be employed in the(a) ConneXions Service National Unit and (b) ConneXions Partnerships at local learning and skills council level following the full implementation of the ConneXions Service. [119260]

  Mr. Wicks
  The ConneXions Service National Unit will largely be staffed by existing civil servants from a range of Government Departments but will also draw on secondees from the voluntary, youth and private sectors where appropriate. The structure of the new National Unit, including the staffing complement, will be for the new Chief Executive to determine when appointed.

  At local Learning and Skills Council level, staffing will be a matter for determination by local ConneXions Partnerships.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the training of learning mentors and personal advisers in the ConneXions Service. [119264]

  Mr. Wicks
  The ConneXions Service will be delivered through a network of Personal Advisers—who, in the school setting, will be known as Learning Mentors. This emerging new profession will be supported by a comprehensive training programme to ensure that those moving into the Personal Adviser role have the appropriate skills and knowledge for the job. We will shortly be consulting widely on the structure of the professional and training framework for Personal Advisers.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many officials in his Department are engaged in the implementation of his proposals for learning mentors. [119263]

  Mr. Wicks
  For the implementation of the current programme of Learning Mentors within Excellence in Cities areas, three officials within DfEE are employed full time. A number of others are involved in the wider development of Excellence in Cities.
  560W
  My Department also contains a team dealing with professional formation issues within the ConneXions Service. These issues include the role and training of Personal Advisers, who, in a school context, will be similar to Learning Mentors. The team contains six members.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his timetable is for the implementation of his proposals in respect of personal advisers in the ConneXions service. [119268]

  Mr. Wicks
  There will be a phased introduction of the ConneXions service from April 2001 over a two to three year period. This will allow time to recruit and train the staff needed for the service. It is expected that in the initial stages of implementation the majority of personal advisers will be drawn from existing careers service and youth service practitioners, along with others from a wide range of backgrounds in the voluntary, public and private sectors with the necessary experience and aptitude to work effectively with young people.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the start-up costs, (b) the running cost in each of the next three years and (c) the annual running cost following full implementation of the learning mentor scheme of the ConneXions service; [119275]

  (2) which partners he expects to pool resources currently devoted to youth support and guidance in order to fund the ConneXions service, referred to in paragraph 6.4 of the paper, ConneXions; and what estimate he has made of the resources he expects each such partner to make available. [119278]

  Mr. Wicks
  The ConneXions strategy document, "ConneXions: The best start in life for every young person" sets out the key services that will contribute to the ConneXions service. These will include careers services, youth services, Youth Offending Teams, the Educational Welfare Service, Learning Mentors and Care Leaver Personal Advisers.

  The whole of the current careers service budget, and also the budget for New Start, will be routed through the ConneXions service. Public expenditure on the careers service in England, in 1999–2000, was planned to be £228 million, and on New Start £5.8 million. Other partners will be expected to contribute to the ConneXions service the appropriate parts of their existing support services for young people, but funding will not be formally transferred to the new service. As a first step, local ConneXions partnerships will be mapping current provision and auditing existing resources as well as local needs. This will inform local delivery plans and decisions about the speed of implementation of the service. Once the information is available, we will be clearer on the resources local partners can make available, the level of start up costs, and the build up of running costs. We are also considering what additional resources will be needed and can be made available as part of the Government's Year 2000 Spending Review.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many personal advisers will be required for the full implementation of the proposals in the paper, "ConneXions"; [119265]
  561W
  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of learning mentors who will be required for the full implementation of his proposals for the ConneXions service; [119273]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost of training enough personal advisers to implement fully the ConneXions service; [119267]

  (4) what plans he has for the identification and recruitment of learning mentors for the ConneXions service; [119271]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the number of persons who will be recruited as personal advisers in addition to persons already employed in the support and guidance of young people in order to fully implement his proposals for the ConneXions service. [119262]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are currently examining the precise numbers of personal advisers required by the ConneXions service—who, within schools, will be known as Learning Mentors, based on the needs of different groups of young people. Piloting of the service, which has just started, will provide useful information on the operation of the personal adviser, caseloads and numbers needed.

  It is expected that in the initial stages of implementation the majority of personal advisers will be drawn from existing careers service and youth service practitioners, along with others from a wide range of backgrounds in the voluntary, public and private sectors with the necessary experience and aptitude to work effectively with young people.

  We will ensure that sufficient resources are available to train people moving into the role of personal adviser. A comprehensive training programme will be put in place to ensure that personal advisers have the appropriate skills and knowledge for the role and meet agreed standards for the profession. To help this process we will shortly be consulting widely on the structure of the professional and training framework for personal advisers.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for the vetting of learning mentors. [119274]

  Mr. Wicks
  For Learning Mentors in the Excellence in Cities programme, as with any school employee, authorities and schools should conduct all necessary background and other checks to verify the suitability of those applying to work with children and young people.

  ConneXions Partnerships will be required to ensure that personal advisers employed within the ConneXions Service have met recruitment specifications. These include: ensuring that personal checks including criminal background checks have been completed prior to employment; that they have attended or agreed to attend appropriate training at a recognised centre offering approved personal adviser foundation training; and that they work effectively in the role of personal adviser to the standards agreed for the role including, for example, the practical application of equal opportunities and diversity.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many meetings he has held with proposed external partners in the Connexions Service. [119270]
  562W
  Mr. Wicks
  My fellow ministers and I have had a substantial number of meetings with proposed external partners in the ConneXions Service. There have also been frequent meetings at official level.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what dates the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on the Connexions Strategy has met; when it next plans to meet; and if he will list the members of the group. [119269]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has chaired two meetings of the "Bridging The Gap" Ministerial Steering Group at which the ConneXions Service—a central part of the overall ConneXions Strategy—was one of the key areas for discussion. The meetings were held on 28 September 1999 and 8 November 1999. In addition to my right hon. Friend, the members of this group are: my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment; the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for Lifelong Learning; my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks); the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; the Minister of State, Home Office; the Minister for the Arts; the Minister of State, Department of Health; the Minister for Local Government and the Regions; the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security; the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales; special advisers from the Prime Minister's office and my Department; and officials from the Social Exclusion Unit. In addition I have held a number of bilateral meetings about the ConneXions Service with other Government Departments.

  Senior officials from across Government have met on 16 occasions since November 1999 to consider the arrangements for introducing the ConneXions Service. Implementation issues are now being overseen by an inter-Departmental ConneXions Group which will meet for the first time shortly.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has carried out with parents regarding personal advisers in the ConneXions Service. [119261]

  Mr. Wicks
  Personal Advisers will work with parents and carers to ensure that young people receive the right information, guidance and support at the right time. It is therefore important that we involve them in the development of the ConneXions Service. We have already sought young people's views through a range of consultation methods and we aim to do the same with parents and carers as the ConneXions pilots are rolled out. This will ensure that the service supports parents in their vital role.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) consultation documents, (b) regulations, (c) revised and corrected regulations, (d) guidance notes, (e) requests for statistical information in addition to form 618G and (f) letters from Ministers, were sent to local education authorities by his Department between April 1996 and April 1997. [118277]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: Between April 1996 and April 1997 this Department sent local education authorities the following:
  563W

  1997

  Consultation papers

  Topic:

  Early Years

  3

  Further and Higher Education

  13

  Literacy and Numeracy

  0

  Primary Schools

  3

  Secondary Schools

  9

  School Curriculum

  0

  School Discipline

  0

  School Finance

  3

  School Governance

  0

  School Health and Safety

  0

  School Miscellaneous

  5

  School Organisation

  1

  School Premises

  0

  School Standards

  6

  Special Education

  0

  Teaching Profession

  5

  Regulations

  87

  Guidance

  Employment

  9

  Early Years

  12

  Further and Higher Education

  10

  Literacy and Numeracy

  1

  Primary Schools

  5

  Secondary Schools

  14

  School Curriculum

  2

  School Discipline

  0

  School Finance

  14

  School Governance

  4

  School Health and Safety

  1

  Topic:

  April 1996 to April 1997

  May to December 1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Consultation papers

  Early Years

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Literacy and Numeracy

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Primary Schools

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Secondary Schools

  2

  6

  5

  4

  1

  School Curriculum

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  School Discipline

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  School Finance

  0

  2

  2

  6

  0

  School Governance

  0

  1

  2

  5

  0

  School Health and Safety

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  School-Miscellaneous

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  School Organisation

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  School Premises

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  School Standards

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Special Education

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Teaching Profession

  5

  1

  4

  3

  3

  Guidance

  Early Years

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Literacy and Numeracy

  0

  0

  5

  15

  2

  Primary Schools

  4

  1

  6

  3

  5

  Secondary Schools

  12

  10

  14

  12

  0

  School Curriculum

  0

  0

  2

  14

  5

  School Discipline

  0

  1

  4

  2

  0

  School Finance

  1

  1

  2

  7

  3

  School Governance

  0

  1

  2

  10

  1

  School Health and Safety

  4

  1

  2

  3

  1

  School-Miscellaneous

  3

  2

  2

  8

  0

  School Organisation

  7

  1

  2

  5

  1

  School Premises

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  School Standards

  6

  3

  3

  8

  1

  Special Education

  1

  2

  0

  3

  0

  Teaching Profession

  8

  3

  9

  17

  13

  564W

  1997

  School Miscellaneous

  14

  School Organisation

  9

  School Premises

  8

  School Standards

  17

  Special Education

  4

  Teaching Profession

  10

  Data collection

  Topic:

  Further and Higher Education

  4

  Literacy and Numeracy

  1

  Primary Schools

  1

  Secondary Schools

  2

  School Curriculum

  0

  School Discipline

  0

  School Finance

  1

  School—General

  6

  School Premises

  0

  School Standards

  0

  Teaching Profession

  1

  Letters from Ministers

  1

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) consultation documents, (b) regulations, (c) revised or corrected regulations, (d) guidance notes, (e) requests for statistical information in addition to form 7 and (f) letters from Ministers, were sent to schools by his Department between April 1996 and April 1997. [118278]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: Since April 1996 this Department has sent schools the following:
  565W

  Topic

  April 1996 to April 1997

  May to December 1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Data collection

  Early Years

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Primary Schools

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Secondary Schools

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  School Finance

  —

  1

  0

  0

  0

  School-General

  7

  4

  9

  11

  9

  School Premises

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  School Standards

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Special Education

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Teaching Profession

  —

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Letters from Ministers

  —

  2

  5

  5

  3

  Note:

  Regulations are not sent to schools

  Teachers (Training Grants)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay his decision to exclude Independent School Council schools from the ICT Training Grants scheme for teachers. [118659]

  Mr. Wills
  National Lottery funding for ICT training is not available to teachers in the independent sector because of the need to maintain a viable programme within the limited Lottery money available. The basis on which the New Opportunities Fund funds the training programme was set out in their Policy Directions, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The Department is currently exploring ways in which the independent and state sector can work together in order to spread good practice in the use of ICT training.

  Church Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to amend the regulations governing the criteria under which church schools can veto school closure plans proposed by local education authorities. [119252]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Under Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, School Organisation Committees and Adjudicators are required to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State when deciding whether or not to approve statutory proposals for changes to schools. The guidance on statutory proposals says that, in deciding proposals to close or reduce the capacity of denominational schools, care should be taken to consider the effect that this will have on the balance of denominational and non-denominational provision. Where the local School Organisation Committee cannot reach a unanimous decision on a proposal, it is passed to a schools Adjudicator to decide. The guidance also says that, where the relevant Church group on the School Organisation Committee has voted against the closure of a denominational school, the Adjudicator should not take a decision that will, when taken with any other related changes, reduce the proportion of such denominational places within an LEA area. We have no plans to amend this aspect of the guidance.

  Capital Allocations (Cleethorpes)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total
  566W
  capital allocation since May 1997 to each school in Cleethorpes constituency; and if he will break down these capital allocations by category. [119469]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  School

  Category of allocation

  £000

  Barton St. Peter's Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  22

  Baysgarth

  Schools Access Initiative

  30

  Baysgarth

  New Deal for Schools

  89

  Baysgarth1

  Surplus Place Removal

  72

  Bowmandale Primary

  Schools Access Initiative

  6

  Bowmandale Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  8

  Castledyke Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  54

  Coomb Briggs Primary

  Class Sizes

  127

  Coomb Briggs

  New Deal for Schools

  134

  East Halton Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  33

  Eastfield Infants1

  Surplus Place Removal

  11

  Eastfield Junior1

  Surplus Place Removal

  11

  Elliston Infants

  Class Sizes

  245

  Enfield Primary

  Class Sizes

  75

  Enfield Primary

  Schools Access Initiative

  3

  Enfield Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  56

  Goxhill Primary

  Class Sizes

  70

  Healing Comprehensive

  New Deal for Schools

  182

  Healing Primary

  Class Sizes

  81

  Healing Primary

  Schools Access Initiative

  2

  Healing Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  222

  Humberston CE Primary

  Class Sizes

  56

  Humberston Secondary

  New Deal for Schools

  10

  Humberston Secondary

  Energy Management

  13

  Humberston Cloverfields

  Class Sizes

  65

  Humberston Park

  New Deal for Schools

  21

  Immingham Comprehensive

  New Deal for Schools

  11

  Immingham Comprehensive1

  Surplus Place Removal

  72

  Immingham St. Andrews Junior1

  Surplus Place Removal

  24

  Killinholme Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  49

  Kirmington CE Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  26

  Lindsey

  New Deal for Schools

  182

  Matthew Humberstone Comprehensive

  Schools Access Initiative

  34

  Matthew Humberstone Comprehensive

  New Deal for Schools

  646

  Middlethorpe Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  19

  New Waltham Primary

  Class Sizes

  66

  New Waltham Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  6

  Pelam Infants1

  Surplus Place Removal

  12

  Queen Mary Avenue Infants

  Class Sizes

  86

  Queen Mary Avenue Infants

  New Deal for Schools

  182

  Reynolds Infants

  Class Sizes

  65

  Signhills Infants

  Class Sizes

  67

  Signhills Junior

  New Deal for Schools

  130

  St. Joseph's RC Primary

  Voluntary Aided Grant

  128

  St. Nicholas Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  64

  St. Peter's CE Primary

  Schools Access Initiative

  3

  Stanford Primary

  Class Sizes

  65

  Stanford Primary

  New Deal for Schools

  78

  The Leas Infants

  Class Sizes

  81

  The Leas Infants

  Schools Access Initiative

  2

  The Leas Junior

  New Deal for Schools

  39

  Wooton CE Primary

  Voluntary Aided Grant

  84

  1 Although credit approval was allocated in respect of projects to

  567W
  remove surplus places from schools in the Cleethorpes constituency, the local education authorities (LEAs) are not obliged to use the credit approval for those schools.

  Note

  Other capital allocations have been made 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.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the minimum qualifying period of two years teaching experience for candidates seeking election to the General Teaching Council. [119706]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Secretary of State has not received any representations on the minimum qualifying period to stand for election to the General Teaching Council.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the minimum information required from candidates seeking election to the General Teaching Council; and if he will make a statement. [119705]

  Jacqui Smith
  The General Teaching Council for England (Constitution) Regulations 1999 set out the eligibility criteria for candidates. Teachers seeking election must have qualified teacher status; must have been employed as a teacher in the 12 months preceding the election and for an aggregate of two years in the five years preceding the election; and must also not be prohibited from teaching. The electoral scheme required candidates, their proposer, seconder and five others to be on the GTC's electoral roll and in the same constituency as the candidate.

  Mental Health Awareness
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to raise awareness of mental health issues among school children. [119578]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Healthy School Standard (NHSS), which was launched last October, has as one of its specific themes 'Emotional Health and Wellbeing', which will include awareness of mental health issues.

  The NHSS will be delivered as an integral part of the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) framework in schools. Over the next two years, through the Standards Fund, £5.7 million each year is being made available by DfEE and DH to LEAs to fund the running of Health Education Partnerships, which in turn should assist schools in the attainment of the National Healthy School Standard. £19,000 (£2.85 million nationwide) was made available to every LEA last year to help set up these partnerships.

  Teachers' Pay (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to amend the law to enable the National Assembly for Wales to pursue a policy of not basing teachers' salaries on an assessment of pupil performance; and if he will make a statement. [119583]
  568W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers' pay is not currently devolved and there are no plans to change this. We believe that while there remains a single pay structure, the same opportunities must be available to teachers in both England and Wales to access the new pay levels.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which national newspapers advertisements for appointments to the Learning and Skills Council were placed. [119700]

  Mr. Wicks
  The posts of Chair and Chief Executive of the proposed Learning and Skills Council, and the Chairs and Executive Directors of the Council's 47 local arms were advertised in the week commencing 2 April. Advertisements for these appointments were placed in the Sunday Times, the Mail on Sunday, the Sunday Telegraph, the Observer, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Times, the Independent, the Times Education Supplement, the Times Higher Educational Supplement, the Eastern Eye/Caribbean Times, the Nation, the Asian Times/New Nation, and the Voice.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to appoint the Chair and Chief Executive of the proposed Learning and Skills Council. [120233]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Learning and Skills Bill has received its Second reading in the Commons, thereby indicating Parliamentary support for the principle of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has started the recruitment process for the national Chair and Chief Executive and the local Chairs and Executive Directors of the proposed Learning and Skills Council. The successful candidates will not formally be appointed to these positions until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Parliamentary approval for expenditure on the Learning and Skills Council will be sought in the Summer Supplementary Estimate for the Department for Education and Employment Vote (Class 1, Vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,285,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  This expenditure is required to meet the cost of recruiting for key posts, together with preparatory work on information and business systems, premises and personnel arrangements for future Learning and Skills Council staff. Its urgency arises from the need to have both the Chair and Chief Executive in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent to ensure that public funds are properly protected and to enable their full participation in the planning process to ensure rapid progress to the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council in April 2001.

  University Constitutions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to consult on changes to universities' constitutions and to reform the visitorial system of disputes resolution in old universities; and if he will produce a timetable. [119678]
  569W
  Mr. Wicks
  The Government have asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to ensure that all higher education institutions have in place student complaint procedures which meet the requirements set out in the report of the Dearing Committee. I understand the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education will shortly launch a Code of Practice on student appeals and complaints which will make reference to university governance. The Government will consider the position in the light of the Code of Practice and discussions with representative bodies.

  Special Schools
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary special schools have been placed on special measures in each year since 1995 in each local education authority. [119538]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: The number of primary and maintained and non-maintained special schools which have been placed in special measures in each local education authority area since 1995 is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries. While there are some special schools which cater for pupils wholly of primary school age, or wholly of secondary school age, there are many others which cover age ranges bridging part or the whole of the primary and secondary phases. The table does not distinguish between special schools covering the wide number of possible different age ranges. The figures in the table represent those primary and maintained and non-maintained special schools which were inspected by Ofsted during that academic year and deemed to be in need of special measures. In total, of the 609 primary schools that have been in special measures, 382 have so far come out and 41 closed. Of the 122 special schools that have been in special measures, 66 have so far come out and 26 closed.

  Local Learning Partnerships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the extent of current involvement by higher education institutions in local learning partnerships and on the future development of this involvement. [119613]

  Mr. Wicks
  Of the 101 Learning Partnerships now established across England, 67 directly involve higher education institutions (HEIs) as members while many others are engaging with HEIs in other ways (for example, through thematic or geographical working groups tackling specific local issues). The DfEE—alongside regional and local partners—is working to further improve links between Learning Partnerships and all those local and regional bodies with an interest in post-16 learning. I fully expect that to result in increased involvement of HEIs in the work of Learning Partnerships.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop performance indicators for the delivery of services by(a) local education authorities, (b) mainstream schools and (c) special schools to children with special educational needs. [119324]
  570W
  Jacqui Smith
  Education Development Plans and Ofsted inspections are used to monitor local education authorities. Annual performance tables are published for both primary and secondary schools. We are considering what if any further information could be used to measure the performance of LEAs and schools with children with special educational needs.

  Adult Learning Inspectorate
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to appoint the Chair and Chief Inspector of the proposed Adult Learning Inspectorate. [120182]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Learning and Skills Bill has received its Second reading in the Commons, thereby indicating Parliamentary support for the principle of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly start the recruitment process for the Chair and Chief Inspector of the proposed Adult Learning Inspectorate. The successful candidates will not formally be appointed to these positions until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Parliamentary approval for expenditure on the Adult Learning Inspectorate will be sought in the Summer Supplementary Estimate for the Department for Education and Employment Vote (Class 1 Vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £285,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  This expenditure is required to meet the cost of recruiting the Chair and Chief Inspector of the proposed Adult Learning Inspectorate together with preparatory work on information and business systems, premises and personnel arrangements for future Adult Learning Inspectorate staff. Its urgency arises from the need to have both the Chair and Chief Inspector in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent to ensure that public funds are properly protected and to enable their full participation in the planning process to ensure rapid progress to the establishment of the Adult Learning Inspectorate in April 2001.

  Trade Union Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what public funds are available to support the educational activities of trades unions; by whom the funds are supervised; and who monitors the outcomes of their use. [119427]

  Mr. Wicks
  There is a £12 million Union Learning Fund (over four years) to support union-led activity on learning in the workplace and in the wider community. It is administered and evaluated by officials within the Department for Education and Employment. There are no public funds specifically available for the educational activities of trade unionists.

  Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employed young persons to date have taken advantage of the right to time off for study under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. [119426]
  571W
  Mr. Wicks
  This information is not collected centrally.

  FEFC and TEC Redundancies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is his estimate of the cost of redundancy payments for staff of the Further Education Funding Council and individual TECs following the setting up of the national and local learning and skills councils; and if he will make a statement; [119683]

  (2) how many staff will be made redundant from the Further Education Funding Council and individual TECs as a result of setting up national and local learning and skills councils. [119684]

  Mr. Wicks
  As the Explanatory Notes to the Learning and Skills Bill explain, we estimate that the new arrangements will lead to a reduction of between 15–20 per cent. in the total number of staff employed to administer post-16 education and training.

  However, the transition to the new arrangements is taking place over a relatively long period. During this period there will be routine turnover of staff within the organisations affected as well as the opportunity to work with those organisations to manage staff numbers in such a way as to reduce the need for redundancies.

  We are currently going through a detailed exercise with TECs and other organisations affected which will provide a clearer picture of numbers by the end of June. if

  Cabinet Office, Agencies and NDPB websites

  Name

  Set-up costs

  Operation costs (annual)

  Content of site

  Estimated expenditure over the next 3 years

  Average number of hits per month

  Cabinet Office (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk)

  Not separately identifiable

  £10,000 per annum for commercial webhosting service

  Cabinet and its committees, ministerial responsibilities, pan Government programmes, guidance, codes and best practice

  There is no planned additional expenditure

  72,300

  NDPBs—The Cabinet Office has no Executive NDPBs and details for its NDPBs are therefore included in the Cabinet Office's total figures above

  Central IT Unit and Information Age Government Champions (www.citu.gov.uk) (www.iagchampions.gov.uk)

  CITU—£30,000 IAGC—£5,000

  £20,000 to CCTA for CITU site in 1999–2000

  The CITU site informs all audiences about the development of government strategy for the use of IT

  £25,000 p.a. estimated

  Not monitored

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (www.hmso.gov.uk)

  Not available

  £47,800 in total based on last year's calculations £28,800 for setting up of inforoute

  Information about HMSO, the administration of Crown Copyright and access to the full text of new legislation. Inforoute is the gateway to the new Government Information Asset Register

  Approx £24,500 per year

  1.8 million

  E-Envoy (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/e-envoy)

  £5,437.50

  £5,757.75 per annum

  The e-Envoy website has been set up to provide information on the work of the Office of the e-Envoy. This includes strategy, monthly-updated progress reports, information on Alex Allan and the team, links and hosts the e-Forum discussion group.

  £50,000 per year

  460

  572W
  redundancies are necessary, we are committed to working with the organisations involved to ensure that these are handled in an open, fair and sensitive way.

CABINET OFFICE

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the expenditure incurred by her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if she will list for each website (i) the topics that have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each web site for each of the next three years. [116203]

  Mr. Stringer
  My Department fully supports the e-government strategy and the Internet forms an integral part of our overall communications, publications and information strategy.

  Details of the websites of the Cabinet Office, its Agencies and NDPBs, and the Central Office of Information are given in the table. The Cabinet Office has no executive NDPBs. The figures for its advisory NDPBs are included in the Department's total figures. As of 1 April 2000 the Cabinet Office only has one Executive Agency, the Government Car and Despatch Agency, so estimated expenditure for future years only covers Cabinet Office, GCDA and COI.
  573W

  Cabinet Office, Agencies and NDPB websites

  Name

  Set-up costs

  Operation costs (annual)

  Content of site

  Estimated expenditure over the next 3 years

  Average number of hits per month

  Government Information and Computer Service (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/gics)

  £32.000 inc. VAT, creation initial training and software purchase

  Costs equivalent to a 1½ days pay in C2 position

  The site provides comprehensive information to potential recruits to the Government Information and Communication Service about career opportunities, working practices and current competitions: electronic application procedures are under development

  Not known

  Not monitored

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (www.ccta.gov.uk)

  The estimated cost is under £5.000 per year. The estimated marginal cost of initially establishing the CCTA web site is under £10.000

  £55,000 per annum

  Services that CCTA offers and guidance on technological issues

  —

  Not monitored

  Central Office of Information (www.coi.gov.uk/coi)

  £40,000

  £20,000 and all within budget

  Case studies, contacts, COI service/contacts/diary, about COI, hot topics, sources of information, what's new

  Estimated expenditure is planned to remain at £20,000 per annum

  Not known

  The Buying Agency (www.open.gov.uk/tba)

  Developed in-house so costs are not separately identifiable

  £3,120 per annum

  The site covers a basic overview of The Buying Agency's operations. The site occasionally promotes events

  —

  Not monitored

  Property Advisers To The Civil Estate (www.property.gov.uk)

  Minimal setting up charges and the annual connection charge is £14,000 per year

  External spend of £9,100, including hosting charges; and estimated internal costs of approximately £30,000

  PACE'S web site details its structure and services

  —

  Not monitored

  Civil Service College (www/open. gov.uk/college)

  The website was set up, at no charge to the Government, in 1995

  £1,175 per annum

  The site contains a full directory of courses offered by the College

  An estimated cost of £3,000 per annum

  Unique user hits are 2,062 and the total number of hits is 36,650

  Government Computer Systems
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans the Government have to reduce the number of times each person's name and address is recorded in Government computer systems. [119475]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As part of our modernising Government agenda we are transforming the delivery of public services to fit in with the needs of those who use them. This means not only providing services in a way that fits in with people's needs but also getting rid of the paper-chasing bureaucracy of the past. We are currently developing a pilot that will be available later this year where people can record their change of address with different parts of Government electronically in one transaction.

  Taskforces
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 204W, if she will publish a list of taskforces created since 9 December 1999. [119541]
  574W
  Mr. Stringer
  We have given a commitment to publish full lists of taskforces and other reviews every six months. The next list covering the period to the end of April will be published in due course.

TREASURY

  Petrol
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how the price of lead replacement petrol is arrived at. [119658]

  Mr. Timms
  The price of petrol is a matter for the oil companies. The duty rate for Lead Replacement Petrol is currently 50.89 pence per litre.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish an environmental appraisal of the second Comprehensive Spending Review: and if he will make a statement. [118858]
  575W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: The White Paper reporting the outcome of the 2000 Spending Review will include an assessment of its implications for sustainable development, covering economic, social and environmental issues.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the horticultural industry on substituting a voluntary agreement on emission reduction for the Climate Change Levy. [119293]

  Mr. Timms
  Budget 2000 announced the Government's intention to offer a special package of support to the horticulture sector under the climate change levy, through setting aside part of the £50 million 'energy efficiency' fund to improve the energy efficiency of the sector and through the additional of thermal screens used in glasshouses to the list of technologies qualifying for the enhanced capital allowances scheme. And to further safeguard the competitiveness of the horticulture sector while these measures take effect, the Government intend to offer a temporary 50 per cent. discount to horticulture firms.

  This package of support and the 50 per cent. discount are not conditional on the horticulture sector entering any form of emission reduction agreement with the Government. The Government have been listening carefully to the views of the horticulture industry as the design of the levy has been worked up and the Government intend to continue working with the industry to maximise the environmental benefits of this package of support by improving the energy efficiency of firms in this sector.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total carbon dioxide saving expected from the Government's original proposals for a climate change levy; and what is the saving expected from the present proposals. [119287]

  Mr. Timms
  The original estimate of the emission saving from the climate change levy, as set out in table 5.1 of the 1999 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, was around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) a year by 2010. This estimate related to the pure price effect of the levy, and did not include any savings from the negotiated agreements with the energy intensive sectors.

  The most recent estimate of the emission saving from the levy package as a whole, as detailed in table 6.2 of the 2000 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, is at least 5 MtC a year by 2010. This estimate now includes the savings from the negotiated agreements with the energy intensive sectors, and the savings from the refinements to the design of the levy that were set out in the 1999 Pre-Budget Report.

  Offshore Financial Activity
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the sterling liabilities of offshore banking in(a) Jersey, (b) Guernsey and (c) the Isle of Man in 1999. [119239]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  576W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on the sterling liabilities of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  Offshore residents are excluded from the definition of the UK for the purposes of BoP estimates. Therefore estimates of offshore banking financial liabilities are not made centrally.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual growth of UK residents' sterling deposits(a) onshore and (b) offshore to Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man for each year from 1996. [119234]

  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 Kidgell to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 19 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), has been asked to reply to your recent question on UK residents sterling deposits onshore and offshore. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The table below gives the annual percentage growth for UK residents sterling deposits with UK monetary financial institutions (UK banks and UK building societies). Estimates for UK residents sterling deposits with offshore monetary financial institutions are not made centrally.

  End year

  Percentage growth

  1996

  9.8

  1997

  14.3

  1998

  6.7

  1999

  2.4

  Source:

  ONS Sector and Financial Accounts

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on sterling M4 and the UK money supply of British money flowing out to offshore financial institutions in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man in the last three years. [119233]

  Mr. Timms
  Data on sterling M4 deposits at Channel Islands and Isle of Man institutions are published by the Bank of England in Table 8 of "Monetary and Financial Statistics". The stock data for sterling private sector deposits—the main component of M4—as at end December each year were:

  £million

  1997

  19,543

  1998

  22,356

  1999

  23,755

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how monetary policy is coordinated between the United Kingdom, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. [119240]

  Mr. Timms
  Although the authorities in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man issue their own notes and coins, the currency used in these jurisdictions is sterling. As a result, the issue of monetary policy co-ordination does not arise.
  577W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who receives the seigniory profit on the note issues of(a) Jersey, (b) Guernsey and (c) the Isle of Man. [119238]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man issue their own notes. I understand that the profits from these note issues accrue respectively to the States of Jersey and Guernsey and to the Isle of Man Government.

  Housing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the scale of equity withdrawal from housing in 1998 and 1999. [119235]

  Mr. Timms
  The Bank of England estimate that mortgage equity withdrawal was -£1.1 billion in 1998 and £8.2 billion in 1999.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of the spectrum he plans to release for mobile phone use; and if he will make a statement. [119999]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total of the highest bids for each of the five third generation mobile phone licences was £21.67 billion at the end of the 139th round of bidding on 18 April.

  Double Taxation Relief
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the loss of tax revenue if all those companies at present benefiting from rules to be changed by the Budget proposals on(a) double taxation relief and (b) controlled foreign companies were to move away from United Kingdom tax jurisdiction; [117398]

  (2) what is the estimated yield from the Budget proposals for (a) double taxation relief for companies and (b) controlled foreign companies if all off-setting behavioural changes are ignored; [117400]

  (3) what is the number of companies likely to be affected by the Budget proposals for (a) double taxation relief and (b) controlled foreign companies. [117399]

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from business organisations concerning the proposed changes to double taxation relief and to controlled foreign companies outlined in his Budget report; how many such representations he has received; from whom such representations have been received; what estimates have been given by business organisations concerning the cost to United Kingdom-based multinationals of the proposed changes; and if he will make a statement; [117284]

  (2) pursuant to the oral statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, of 27 March 2000, Official Report, column 121, if he will list the companies named in representations by Mr. Peter Wyman of PricewaterhouseCoopers as likely to be adversely affected by the proposed changes to double tax relief and to controlled foreign companies outlined in his Budget report; [117281]
  578W
  (3) if he proposes to revise the estimated revenue to be produced by the changes to double taxation relief and to controlled foreign companies outlined in his Budget report following the representations made by business organisations; [117285]

  (4) within what range of cost to individual UK-based multinationals the proposed changes to double taxation relief and to controlled foreign companies outlined in his Budget report will fall; [117280]

  (5) pursuant to the oral statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, of 27 March 2000, Official Report, column 121, what representations have been made to the Treasury by Mr. Peter Wyman of PricewaterhouseCoopers concerning the proposed changes to double taxation relief and to controlled foreign companies outlined in his Budget report. [117282]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 3 April 2000]: The expected yield from the double taxation relief and controlled foreign company proposals is set out in Table A.13 of the 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report. No other reliable estimates have been received. The extent to which companies will be affected will vary from year to year depending on a number of factors. The Government are determined to create the most competitive environment for business in the world. We have cut corporate tax rates to their lowest level ever but to keep tax rates low we cannot tolerate the erosion of the tax base by tax avoidance schemes and structures.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the distributional impact(a) of the children's tax credit and Working Families Tax Credit of £32 per week for a second adult and (b) if the CTC were reduced so that the cost to the Exchequer was the same as a £32 credit for a second adult. [118202]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As given in the reply to my hon. Friend on 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 817W, based on the full year cost of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), the cost of including an additional £32 per week within the credits for all couples already in receipt of WFTC would be about £1.3 billion before taking into account additional take-up and other behavioural effects. If the overall costs to the Exchequer were to remain the same, a cost of this magnitude could absorb the funding for the children's tax credit (CTC).

  The £32 per week second adult credit would benefit all couples in receipt of the WFTC equally, whereas the CTC would benefit all families with children under 16 by up to £8.50 per week.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 340W, if he will disaggregate the number of families claiming Family Credit and Working Families Tax Credit by (a) income deciles, (b) each £5,000 of household income and (c) families above and below half average household income. [118231]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: For the analyses of families with the Working Families Tax Credit, I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given on

  579W
  12 April 2000, Official Report, column 160W. For Family Credit, the latest available estimates are for recipients in 1997–98. The distributions are given in the tables as percentages.

  (a) Percentage distribution of families receiving Family Credit by quintile of net equivalised household income, 1997–98

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Bottom quintile

  41

  38

  Second quintile

  39

  44

  Third, fourth and top quintile

  20

  18

  (b) Percentage distribution of families receiving Family Credit by £100 band of net equivalised household income, £ per week, 1997–98

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  0 to £100

  *

  18

  £100 to £200

  63

  68

  £200 to £300

  27

  (12)

  £300+

  *

  *

  (c) Percentage distribution of families receiving Family Credit above/below half average net equivalised household income, 1997–98

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Above half average income

  61

  50

  Below half average income

  39

  50

  Notes

  1. The information comes from the "Household Below Average Income" (HBAI) data set for 1997–98, based on the Family Resources Survey, and relate to Great Britain.

  2. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs, in line with HBAI conventions.

  3. All the estimates in the table relate to families in receipt of Family Credit, and are based on their incomes recorded in the survey, not at the time of claim. The are also based on incomes equivalised using the McClements scale. Equivalised incomes are equivalent to cash incomes for couples with no children. The results in table (b) are particularly sensitive to the choice of scale.

  4. All the estimates are subject to sampling error. Groups have been aggregated due to small sample numbers. In particular, this has led to decile groups being aggregated to quintile groups in table (a). Results are not reliable for cells with small sample sizes: cells with sample sizes under 50 are marked with an asterisk (*). Results for cells based on samples of 50 to 100 benefit units are bracketed.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 340W, how many of those families claiming Working Families Tax Credit in each month since its introduction would have been entitled to family credit. [118232]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), gave him on 3 April 2000, Official Report, column 340W.
  580W
  Given the difference in income rules in relation to maintenance and the fact that it is not possible to isolate behavioural effects (such as the number of families who may have entered work or increased their hours because Working Families Tax Credit provides a more generous work incentive than Family Credit) it is not possible to determine whether individual Working Families Tax Credit recipients in each month would have been entitled to Family Credit.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons it is necessary for claimants of working families tax credit who are paid monthly to provide more evidence of earnings than claimants who are paid weekly. [119739]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit is based on a snapshot of a family's income immediately before the claim and is paid for a fixed period of 26 weeks. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the period over which normal earnings are considered is representative. For weekly-paid applicants, the set period is six weeks in the seven weeks immediately before the week in which the application is made. For monthly-paid people, the set period is the three months before the application. These periods should provide a representative picture in arriving at the applicant's normal earnings. Although monthly-paid staff are asked to provide evidence of pay over a three month period they need only provide three payslips whereas weekly-paid staff are required to provide six payslips.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have been awarded working families tax credit in each local authority area in London. [119829]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Up to the end of March 2000, there had been 76,200 awards made of the Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) in the London Government Office Region. Available figures by local authority are given in the table.

  Local authority

  Estimated number of WFTC awards made to end March 20001

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,100

  Barnet

  2,000

  Bexley

  1,400

  Brent

  3,100

  Bromley

  2,000

  Camden

  1,600

  Croydon

  4,000

  Ealing

  3,100

  Enfield

  2,900

  Greenwich

  2,800

  Hackney

  3,300

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,200

  Haringey

  2,500

  Harrow

  1,400

  Havering

  2,000

  Hillingdon

  2,100

  Hounslow

  2,600

  Islington

  1,800

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,000

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  700

  Lambeth

  4,400

  Lewisham

  3,600

  Merton

  1,800

  Newham

  4,500

  Redbridge

  1,600

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  700

  581W

  Local authority

  Estimated number of WFTC awards made to end March 20001

  Southwark

  3,300

  Sutton

  1,800

  Tower Hamlets

  4,100

  Waltham Forest

  2,800

  Wandsworth

  2,300

  Westminster and City of London2

  1,700

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. The estimates for constituencies in Great Britain are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to sampling error. For example local authorities with 500 awards could be in the range 300 to 700.

  2 A single estimate is given for Westminster and the City of London as there are too few sample cases in the latter for a reliable estimate to be made.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over pensionable age in the UK paid income tax in 1999 [118835]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the number of pensioners1 who are liable to income tax in 1999–2000 is 4.0 million.

  This estimate is based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  1 Women aged 60 and over, men aged 65 and over.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what items of personal data his Department routinely obtains from public utilities and other Government Departments for data matching exercises undertaken in his Department. [119529]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue obtains personal data, under its statutory information powers, from a variety of third parties and collates this data by reference to individual records. It does provide personal data, as permitted by Social Security legislation, to the Department of Social Security for data matching by that Department to prevent and detect crime; to check the accuracy of their information; or to protect public funds.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his Department's data matching with respect to benefit fraud and tax evasion with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998; what representations he has received on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [119527]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue obtains personal data, under its statutory information powers, from a variety of third parties and collates this data by reference to individual records. It does provide personal data, as permitted by Social Security legislation, to the Department of Social Security for data matching by that Department to prevent and detect crime; to check the accuracy of their information; or to protect public funds.
  582W
  The Inland Revenue has not received any representations on data matching and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Code of Practice covers his Department's data matching activities; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [119528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue obtains personal data, under its statutory information powers, from a variety of third parties and collates this data by reference to individual records. It does provide personal data, as permitted by Social Security legislation, to the Department of Social Security for data matching by that Department. This data matching is governed by their published "Code of Practice for Data Matching".

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what items of personal data, not related to PAYE arrangements, his Department routinely obtains from the London Borough of Waltham Forest; and if he will make a statement. [119530]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue obtains information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest under its statutory information powers. This information comprises all payments for services rendered to the borough, all payments made under grants or subsidies, all licences, registers and approvals and payments under leases and related obligations.

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119434]

  Dawn Primarolo
  So that the Cabinet Office can published the spring 2000 report monitoring progress towards delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005 we are currently collecting data which will include our progress on delivering 25 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2002. I do not want to pre-empt that report, but I can say that we currently provide a range of services electronically that include:

  Customs and Excise

  (i) The following services are currently available electronically online (by Electronic Data Interchange—EDI)

  Customs Exports and Imports declarations
  Intrastat declarations
  VAT EC Sales Listing declarations
  Also available now, in the internet, are:
  provision of departmental information via our website
  Intrastat declarations
  VAT return pilot (2,000 traders)

  (ii) The following services are planned to be available online on the internet by 2002: VAT return (full operation starting with 100,000 traders in January 2001)

  VAT registration
  VAT EC Sales listings Climate Change Levy
  Insurance Premium Tax
  Customs (Third Country exports) declarations
  Beer, wine, cider duty
  Tobacco Products duty
  583W
  Government Actuary's Department (GAD)

  (i) The following services are currently available online and via the GAD website

  I. Public access to GAD staff via external e-mail and for correspondence to clients.

  II. Population Projections (1998)

  III. Command Documents and Publications written by Government Actuary staff

  IV. Portal to other Government Departments via open.gov.uk

  V. Recruitment Details

  VI. Contacts and Organisational Structure of GAD

  Press Releases

  (ii) The following services are planned to be available online via the Internet by 2002

  Public access to Annual Report and Public Service Agreement
  Public Sector Pension Services Catalogue
  International Services Catalogue
  Proforma Passport for contracting out of services
  Best Practice Guidance
  Marital Conditions Projections and Annual Life Tables
  Desktop Internet Access for all staff
  Remote e-mail access for all staff
  Further Population Projections (2000 and 2002)
  GAD Vacancy Notices and online application
  The provision of bespoke Actuarial calculation software to clients (e-commerce) is currently under investigation.

  Royal Mint
  The Royal Mint has a website for its collector coin customers. In addition, and if you wish to expand, the following website facilities are offered:

  (i) Current online facilities

  Online ordering
  Forum Facility (an open contributory facility relating to coinage)
  Corporate information provision (history, annual report etc.)
  Museum (information on the current museum collection)
  General circulation coinage statistics
  Chat facility (opportunity to talk to members of the Royal Mint and other coin enthusiasts)
  Monthly competitions
  e-mail based inquiry facility (order, product information etc.)
  Contact via e-mail

  (ii) Expecting to be delivered by 2002

  Order tracking facility
  Subscription e-mail newsletter

  UK Debt Management Office

  (i) Current: Website giving information on gilts policy announcements and publications

  (ii) By 2002: Gilts database accessible via website

  Possibly, personal investor access to the Bank of England's gilts brokerage service; and
  Bidding at gilts auctions (but cannot be certain)

  National Savings
  The National Savings Internet site currently offers product information and access to application forms for all products which can be printed and sent by post to National Savings.
  National Savings aims to provide the following services online for all products (with the possible exception of the passbook savings account):

  general information and inquiry fulfilment

  sales and account opening

  after sales service and information

  limited withdrawal services

  Delivery of these services is expected to be available for customers before 2002.
  584W
  Office for National Statistics (ONS)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) currently manages/ provides two websites:
  The ONS website; which promotes the ONS and its products and services.
  It provides sources and contacts for all the products we produce and services we provide; and
  the Government Statistical Service (GSS) website which offers free downloadable economic and social statistics via a database delivery system, ONS Press Releases, details of job vacancies and training with the GSS and carries promotions and links to other Government Departments' statistics.
  The new National Statistics website. to go live in June, will be a redesigned amalgamation of both the previous sites. It will offer everything both sites already offer. In addition many publications will be available to view online with the option to purchase via e-commerce in place by the end of the year.
  Further development and enhancement of the site will be led by research with users.

  HM Treasury
  The domestic Treasury has contact with the general public through its Publishing Unit, the Public Inquiry Unit and via Ministerial Correspondence, and with business via its procurement procedures. The Publishing Unit is responsible for the Treasury's Internet site, which already offers online access to many of its publications. It is also possible to e-mail the Public Inquiry Unit via a link on the public website. The system that deals with Ministerial Correspondence will be updated to cope with all forms of electronic communication, including e-mail, before 2002. The Treasury Procurement Unit is working closely with the Office of Government Commerce and plans to participate in the Government Shopping Mall and to pilot electronic tendering before 2002.

  Inland Revenue

  (i) The following services are currently available online:

  By Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
  Electronic Lodgement Service (for approved agents to send their clients Self Assessment returns to the Revenue electronically. 300,000 returns for 1998–99 were received this way)
  Employer Electronic Communication (for, predominantly large. employers to exchange PAYE and CIS forms and returns with the Revenue electronically)
  On the Internet, via our website, are:
  provision of departmental information and guidance
  a range of forms for download and print,
  Valuation Office 1995 and 2000 Non-Domestic Rating Lists online, with an online appeals facility
  Capital Taxes Office, Tax-exempt Heritage Assets database
  registration facility for the new service which will allow individual taxpayers to send their tax return to Inland Revenue via the Internet within the next few weeks

  Additional services planned to be available online by 2002 will allow a range of forms and returns to be sent to the Inland Revenue via the Internet
  Self Assessment
  Pay As You Earn (PAYE)
  A number of other services, such as Corporation Tax, which will be delivered during 2002 are currently at the planning stage

  Valuation Office
  Targets in respect of key services to be delivered by 2002
  Complaints and correspondence. Facility already enabled. The target is for 25 per cent. being received electronically by 2002. The recent implementation of Internet e-mail in all Valuation

  585W
  Offices and creation of the VOA website should ensure this target is, commensurate with the public's access to e-mail, easily met.
  Rating List availability
  The 1995 and 2000 rating lists are now available online via the Internet. There have been 2 million "hits" since January 2000
  Rating appeals
  Since April 2000 ratepayers and their advisers have been able to submit appeals electronically against the 1995 and 2000 rating lists. The target is that by 2002 40 per cent. of appeals are submitted this way. Critical to meeting this target is success in working closely with the surveying profession to ensure the numerous appeals they submit on behalf of clients are electronic.
  Forms of return
  Prior to each quinquennial revaluation of non domestic properties up to 1.8 million notices requiring a return of information essential to the valuation process are issued.
  The next 2005 revaluation will require forms being issued in early 2003. We expect to offer an electronic lodgement service with a target of 20 per cent. of forms being received this way.
  Transfer of Rating and Council Tax Data to Valuation Tribunal Offices.
  The VOA transfers large quantities of information in respect of appeals to the VTO's on a regular basis. Previously achieved in hard copy and then magnetic tape this process became electronic in October 1999.
  Council Tax Lists and Appeals via the Internet
  Government guidelines currently preclude publishing the Council Tax lists on the Internet. Consideration is being given to how to facilitate electronic lodgement of appeals and what the target should be.
  Data transfer of lists and schedules to BA's
  VOA frequently transfers significant quantities of data to Billing Authorities in the form of complete lists and schedules for Council Tax and Rating. Current media is hard copy, floppy disk or tape (23 million properties). With effect from I May 2000 this data transfer is available electronically.
  Instructions
  With effect from 1 June 2000 the key instructions used by VOA staff to carry out their responsibilities will be available online to the public
  Telephone
  Last year the Agency implemented a new telephone system which enables the public to ring any valuation office in the country at local call rates

  Office of Government Commerce HQ

  (i) OGC provides online information through its website

  OGC are planning to have the infrastructure to enable departments to carry out online electronic procurement functions by 2002

  PACE
  Assumes that as the question is about services to the public, in which case a nil return for both (i) and (ii)

  The Buying Agency
  TBA currently provide an online catalogue and ordering facility for goods and services available through competitively tendered frameworks for use by buyers throughout the public sector.
  The existing online ordering will be extended to include payment etc. before 2002
  586W
  CCTA
  The only service CCTA provides online to the public is the availability of the open.gov.uk access point to government websites. We have no plans for additional services by 2002.
  We do provide online services to other Government organisations, (a) in terms of advice and guidance provided on the Virtual Foundation intranet site and (b) through our catalogue services and framework contracts for Government purchasers of IT goods and services. It is planned to expand these facilities by 2002.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what safeguards the Inland Revenue has in place to ensure that employers' annual packs are delivered before the start of a new tax year. [119339]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue includes in the mailing a number of seed packs addressed to its own staff to ensure the completion of the pack and the Royal Mail delivery times.

  Royal Mail has its own quality assurance procedures. In addition, the two mailing contractors have strict quality assurance measures in place and the Inland Revenue sends in some of its own staff to check on the assembly and packing of the Annual Packs.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of employers' annual packs due to be sent out by the Inland Revenue for the new tax year had been dispatched by 4 April; and if he will make a statement on how the dispatch has been organised. [119341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We understand there is a small problem in the order of 1 per cent. in the despatch of Employers' Annual Packs by 4 April 2000.

  The Inland Revenue's IT partner—EDS—supplied Dataforce Group, Northampton, with name, address and reference details of some 1.2 million employers to whom an Annual Pack was to be issued. Dataforce Group personalised address carriers for each employer and enclosed 50 per cent. of these together with the other contents of Annual Packs, the other 50 per cent. being handled by Scotmail Ltd. of Glasgow. The Annual Packs were despatched by second class post. The Inland Revenue has three year contracts with both Dataforce Group and Scotmail, which have at least a further two years to run. These contracts were let in 1999 through the normal contract letting process, overseen by the Inland Revenue Contractors and Procurement Unit.

  The Inland Revenue has outsourced the assembly and despatch of its Annual Packs since 1993.

  The management and control of the contracts with Dataforce Group, Scotmail and Royal Mail in respect of employer packs, were handled by Inland Revenue, Business and Management Services Division in Shipley, West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the delivery of Inland Revenue employers' annual packs in 2000 to date; and if he will make a statement. [119340]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers receive representations on a wide range of subjects.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to limit tobacco smuggling via the port of Dover from the continent. [119581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government recently announced a huge new investment of up to £209 million for HM Customs and Excise to tackle tobacco smuggling. Customs are appointing nearly 1,000 extra staff, a substantial number of whom will be at Dover. In addition, Dover will be included in the new national network of x-ray scanners.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which clauses in the Finance Bill were altered prior to its introduction so that their wording conformed to the aims of the Tax Law Rewrite project in respect of plain language. [119423]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: Draftsmen always seek to write as clearly as possible, subject to the overriding requirements of accuracy and certainty. Where provisions in a Finance Bill amend past Finance Acts—as is often the case—the drafting has to take account of the structure and wording of the existing legislation.

  In the case of the Finance Bill 2000, the draftsmen have also been able to take account of the draft legislation published by the Tax Law Rewrite Project and have, where possible, taken the Project's approach into account. Part 9 of Schedule 22 (on Tonnage Tax) is an example of this.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 609W, what assumptions were made regarding entitlement to inherited SERPS in calculating the estimated balance in the National Insurance Fund at the end of 2001–02. [118935]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: In calculating the estimated balance in the National Insurance Fund at the end of 2001–02 it was assumed that there would be a 100 per cent. entitlement to inherited SERPS if the spouse died in 2000–01 or 2001–02.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the National Insurance Fund balance at the end of each year from 2000–01 to 2010–11 is expected to exceed the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary. [118936]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 16 February 2000, Official Report, column 608W, detailing estimates for 2000–01 and 2001–02. As I explained then, the figures are based on the difference between forecasts of receipts and expenditure. Small changes in these forecasts could have a substantial impact on the excess. Current projections suggest that existing policy with respect to the National Insurance Fund is consistent with long-term sustainability. However, given the sensitivity of the variables involved, precise long-term forecasts of any actual excess on the Fund reserves would be misleading.

  Employment Tax Credit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what method was used in calculating the cost of an employment tax credit given in paragraph 3.24 of the Treasury paper, "Supporting Work Through an Employment Tax Credit"; how much he estimates will be paid through the adult allowance portion of the working families tax credit in financial year 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [119053]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: Detailed design of the parameters for an employment tax credit for people without children will be decided in due course prior to its introduction from 2003. The costing in paragraph 3.24 is based on an illustrative model which extends the adult credit in the Working Families Tax Credit to single people and couples with someone over the age of 25, working 30 or more hours, and with a higher rate for couples than for singles. It was estimated using household and income data from the Family Expenditure Survey and the Family Resources Survey.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of expenditure in the Working Families Tax Credit by type of credit. The amount of award payable is reduced for families whose incomes are above the threshold, and this reduction is applied to the total value of all credits taken together.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on issuing incorrect penalties for people who had filled in and sent off their tax returns on time for the 1998–99 tax year. [119737]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which budget the money was found to cover the cost of wrongly-issued penalties for 1998–99 tax returns. [119736]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of incorrectly issuing around 5,000 penalty notices in respect of 1998–99 tax returns has been met out of the Inland Revenue's budget.

  Smuggling
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when x-ray detectors for the use of customs officers will be introduced to combat smuggling. [119742]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is expected the first scanner will be operational in November 2000. Additional scanners will be installed in the following months.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to stimulate investment in and expansion of small businesses; and what proposals he has to remove disincentives to the retention of profits for the purpose of reinvestment in small unincorporated businesses. [119779]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The recent Budget 2000 took further steps to boost investment in and expansion of small business. These measures form part of the Government's drive to raise productivity across the economy by encouraging enterprise development.
  589W
  The measures to stimulate investment in small businesses included:
  cuts in capital gains tax to create the most favourable environment Britain has ever seen for encouraging entrepreneurs and investment in small business;
  an extra £100 million for a new £1 billion target "umbrella fund" for small scale venture capital investment across the regions over the next three to five years;
  a new corporate venturing tax relief, designed to promote investment by larger companies in smaller enterprises, which can play a vital role in providing finance and other benefits to innovative small firms; and
  changes to the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trusts will make the schemes more attractive to investors and boost the availability of venture capital for small higher risk trading companies.

  The measures to encourage expansion of small businesses by reinvesting their own resources include:
  reductions of the small company corporation tax rate from 23 to 20 per cent., and introduction this year of a new starting rate of corporation tax of 10 per cent. for the first £10,000 of taxable profits, with the benefit tapering away as profits rise to £50,000;
  a new R&D tax credit designed to encourage investment in R&D by small and medium-sized companies;
  extending permanent enhanced first year capital allowances (at 40 per cent.) for small and medium-sized firms to encourage investment in plant and machinery;
  introducing 100 per cent. capital allowances for small enterprises investing in IT equipment over the next three years.

  The Government have no specific proposals to encourage the retention of profits for the purpose of reinvestment in small unincorporated businesses. However, reductions in income tax rates introduced in the 1999 Budget and the changes to capital allowances for small
  590W
  businesses in the Budget 2000 combine to boost the post-tax revenues of small unincorporated businesses, enabling them to invest more in their future growth.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119544]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department have not accepted advertising on, nor sponsorship for, their websites. Therefore, the Departments have not received income to retain.

  However, if they were to accept advertising or sponsorship they would follow the practice laid down in the Government website standards and the standards that are applied to all other forms of publicity.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 451W, on the euro, for what reason he did not refer to the "EuroTour" CD Rom; and what is his policy thereon. [119837]

  Mr. Timms
  The "Euro Tour" CD Rom was not produced by the UK Government nor was it funded by the Commission in the UK.

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

Lord Erskine of Alloa Tower
James Thorne Earl of Mar and Kellie, having been created Baron Erskine of Alloa Tower, of Alloa in the County of Clackmannanshire, for life, took the oath.
Lord Ponsonby of Roehampton
Frederick Matthew Thomas Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, having been created Baron Ponsonby of Roehampton, of Shulbrede in the County of West Sussex, for life, took the oath.

Manufacturing Industry
2.38 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present level of manufacturing industry in the British economy as a percentage of gross national product and how this figure compares with 1979.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, industry shares of gross national product are not available. However, the manufacturing share of gross value added has declined since the 1970s, from around 26.5 per cent in 1979 to 20 per cent in 1999.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that since the 1950s there has been a steady decline in manufacturing industry as a percentage of gross domestic product? This is a sector on which regions like Wales and the north of England rely for their economic well-being. Does my noble friend recognise also that, despite the success of the services industry, manufacturing industry provides 62 per cent of our exports? Is it not disturbing, therefore, that, for the past six quarters, investment in manufacturing industry has fallen? If we go on like this, we risk sacrificing our future. Cannot the Government prevail on our companies to invest in British manufacturing industry?
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend is right about the decline of manufacturing industry. However, I have more recent good news in relation to investment. There has, indeed, been a decline in investment in manufacturing industry, but in the fourth quarter of last year—the most recent quarter for which we have figures—there was an increase of 4 per cent. The Government have been trying to increase investment in manufacturing
698
industry with our cut in corporation tax to its lowest level ever, with the removal of ACT, and with the 40 per cent first-year capital allowances for small and medium establishments.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in spite of the fall in manufacturing capacity in the post-war period, nevertheless manufacturing remains a potent force in the economy of the country? It provides 4 million jobs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, pointed out, over 60 per cent of our exports. In those circumstances, is it the Government's aim and objective to build on that capacity? Bearing in mind the problems that manufacturing industry faces not only with high interest rates but also with the high value of sterling, do the Government accept that a basic requirement is the increased application of new technologies to industrial processes, for which increased investment is required, thus leading to a closing of the productivity gap between us and our main competitors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a complex set of interlinking questions. It is the Government's intention to maintain and build on our manufacturing sector because we recognise its importance for the economy and for our exports. Again, I have more recent good news in that exports of goods increased by 7 per cent in the past six months compared with the previous six months. I have already answered the question in relation to investment in indicating the help that we are giving to promote investment in manufacturing industry. It is true that changes in technology demand substantial increases in investment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in view of the decline, particularly in employment in manufacturing, and as many future jobs will depend on it, should not the Government actively promote manufacturing rather than undermine it by excessive taxation and regulation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government certainly promote manufacturing industry in this country and through many trade missions abroad. I have given evidence of the extent to which we encourage investment in manufacturing industry through our taxation policies. I reject the accusation of the noble Lord.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn mentioned the north of England. I confirm his comments, but at the same time I congratulate the Government on the £100 million which is now earmarked to revive the coal industry even though there is only one pit left in the north-east. That pit has, however, been saved. What have the Government in mind with regard to shipbuilding?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was as pleased as my noble friend to see photographs of relieved miners at Ellington colliery Unfortunately,

699
my noble friend asked a Starred Question on the coal industry on Monday half an hour before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made his Statement. Therefore, I was not able to give the good news that I knew he sought. The problem with the shipbuilding industry is that the size of individual orders is large and if one order is lost—as happened recently in Northern Ireland—that has a huge effect on employment and on the economy. However, we continue to give the support that we can.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the Government taking into account the fact that manufacturing industry may well suffer from, and be reduced as a result of, the climate change levy as proposed? Given that many firms are energy based but not labour intensive, they will not be compensated by the return of national insurance contributions under the Government's plan. Those firms which employ few people but are very dependent on energy will suffer. Nothing the Government have yet done has been sufficient to correct that situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the imposition of the climate change levy is the only way in which we can fulfil our international obligations to achieve a sustainable environment. The noble Lord is correct to say that parts of manufacturing industry are energy intensive and that they will suffer from the provision. However, a large sector of manufacturing industry has high employment and relatively low energy use.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that it is not so much sectors that are the issue here, but rather the kinds of businesses that are being established? If we are to have economic reform and job creation, we must encourage the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises to a far greater extent. Does he also agree that the Welsh economy in particular could benefit from the creation of SMEs rather than relying on big companies investing in the Principality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, some time ago I mentioned the special help which is being given to small and medium enterprises particularly in terms of first-year capital allowances. My noble friend is right to say that much job creation arises from small and medium enterprises which, it is hoped, will grow into large enterprises.

Waste Incineration: Proposed Directive
2.46 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What communications took place between officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment,
700
Transport and the Regions during the consultation period for the European Union directive on the incineration of waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions leads for the UK in the ongoing negotiation of the proposed waste incineration directive. Since February 1994, when the Commission began consultation on its initial working paper towards a proposal for a waste incineration directive, MAFF officials have been fully consulted by their colleagues in DETR (and its predecessor, the Department of the Environment) in writing, in meetings of interested government departments, and bilaterally. DETR officials are continuing discussions with colleagues in MAFF and other government departments.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware that I sat on Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee which considered this draft directive and that at no time was there any mention of an estimated 3,000 incinerators for animal carcasses—I refer to those in pet crematoria, in veterinary surgeries, farms which have on-site incinerators, hunt kennels and the big BSE incinerators—which, if this directive is not amended, will face disastrous consequences? I understand that MAFF was not consulted about the number of incinerators which may be affected although it is responsible for them. Will the noble Lord please ensure that everything possible is done at a European level to ensure that the operators of these incinerators are not penalised and that we have nowhere to destroy our animals?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these issues have been raised. It may be necessary to tell noble Lords— although probably not the noble Baroness—that they should not believe everything they read in the Sunday Telegraph. We were well aware of a problem with small incinerators. At one point the number of these was probably underestimated, most of them having been established since the introduction of the 1991 regulations to dispose of fallen stock as a result of the BSE regulations. Fallen stock needs to be destroyed and disposed of to ensure that it is not used as feedingstuffs. We pursued the question of a possible exemption for small incinerators, but we received no support from other member states. As we agree with the objective of the directive and there is a five-year period in which farmers and others may adapt their practices, we consider that the final form of the directive will be acceptable to the UK and will be one that the agriculture industry can adapt to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it true that the Italians have received not a derogation but a total exemption for incinerators of vegetable waste? Is it not

701
further true that Her Majesty's Government did not even try to obtain such derogations or exemptions from this pernicious directive?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. We attempted to, but we received no support. As regards the Italians, there is an exemption for vegetable waste from the food processing industry and for cork waste used as biomass. This is because we do not want the regulations to be a disincentive to using biomass for energy purposes—which is, of course, environmentally desirable in itself.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, what are the likely compliance costs of this directive for each individual incinerator operator who will have to upgrade his equipment—which, as the noble Lord said earlier, was possibly installed only six or seven years ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the compliance costs for individual farmers will be dependent on the way in which they decide to dispose of such waste in the future. I have seen very large figures floating around, but they relate to a situation where every single individual farmer decides to buy a large incinerator. That will not, in practice, be the case. The farmers will have five years in which to adapt their practices and to use either neighbouring larger incinerators or other methods of disposal. The question relating to individual farmers has been misconstrued in some coverage of the issue.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister's response to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I understand that exemptions have been given to Italy, which he has mentioned, and to Portugal. Meat and bonemeal are banned here and the disposal of carcasses is a big issue in the United Kingdom, but not in other countries. Under those circumstances, will the Government press for derogation for our farmers? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that although the directive is due to come into being in 2006, this country is due to implement it within the next two years—early yet again?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a five-year period to adapt to the directive. Whatever the point of its transposition through Parliament, that five-year figure stands in terms of the period for adaptation. The noble Baroness is right, there is a particular problem within the UK as a result of the BSE regulations. We have to destroy carcasses—and, in some cases, render them into small incinerators—which is not necessarily the case in the rest of Europe. That in itself causes another problem in regard to small incinerators in that some of them do not appear to be operating at anything like the temperature which the SEAC committee recommended for the disposal of beasts of over 30 months. So there is an additional problem because of the peculiar situation in the United Kingdom.
It would be misleading to say that we will go back to seek a derogation on that, both for that reason and because there is no support for such a derogation
702
elsewhere within the European Union, as I have outlined. The overall impact of the directive is very beneficial for environmental purposes.

Life Assurance and Pension Companies
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtreeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure the preservation of consumer choice in the light of a number of recent take-overs and consolidations of life assurance and pension companies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, mergers and acquisitions in recent years have not significantly reduced the overall number of companies authorised to carry on life and pensions business. Proposals for mergers are subject to the usual scrutiny procedures. Competition authorities consider the implications both for competition and for consumer choice. The Government are acting to improve the regulatory framework through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. That will help to deliver better value for money for consumers.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the "once for all lifetime" may well be very welcome to those who are members of the mutuals, they do stand possibly to lose a great deal if the companies disappear, as do others? Did the Minister notice the comments made three clays ago in the Sunday Telegraph by the managing director of a providence group—and, in spite of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I am sure that this article can be relied upon—to the effect that mutuality is now fundamentally unstable? Does the Minister recognise that there is great concern about this matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a policy holder with two mutual companies, both of which recently decided to demutualise against my vote. So I think my personal view may be evident already to the noble Baroness. I did read the comment to which the noble Baroness referred. I do not think that it is a general view within the industry. It is true that there are mutual companies which are subject to take-over or to demutualisation under pressure from their own members.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a policy holder of a mutual company, Standard Life, which is opposing demutualisation. Is my noble friend aware that the carpetbaggers who are attempting to force through this demutualisation are claiming that the board of the company can act only in the interests of present policy holders and that it may, if it wishes, appropriate the capital of the company for itself, regardless of the interests of future policy holders? Can my noble friend confirm that the Government do not share that view

703
and that they accept that the boards of mutuals have as much responsibility to future policy holders as they have to existing ones?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's view is that the boards of mutual companies have responsibilities to a number of different stakeholders, including current policy holders, the employees and prospective policy holders.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the holder of both a mutual policy and a non-neutral policy. The Minister has expressed his personal view; what is the Government's view so far as concerns mutuality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a neutral mutual view, one might say. The Government's view is that a variety of different kinds of governance in the insurance industry is a good thing. Therefore there is a place for both mutual companies and for shareholder-owned companies.

Zimbabwe
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in persuading President Mugabe to restrain intimidation and violence in Zimbabwe and to fix a date for an election; and when Ministers will next meet Ministers from Zimbabwe to discuss these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the House will know from yesterday's news that another Zimbabwean tragically lost his life in Zimbabwe, bringing the total, we believe, to 10 deaths over the past few weeks. We have repeatedly urged President Mugabe to restore the rule of law in Zimbabwe and to act to prevent further violence against the farmers or against those campaigning for the forthcoming elections. Parliament was dissolved on 11th April. The constitution requires elections to be held within four months of Parliament being dissolved. The date of the elections must be announced by 7th July. We hope to receive a ministerial delegation from Zimbabwe shortly after Easter to follow up President Mugabe's meeting with the Foreign Secretary in Cairo on 3rd April.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House shares my feelings of horror at what is going on in Zimbabwe at the moment and my sorrow for those who have been killed and for their families. Having read the article of her noble friend Lord Renwick in The Times yesterday, does the Minister agree that the most important issue is that the elections take place as she said—or next month, in fact? Does
704
she further agree that there should be international supervision, particularly from neighbouring African countries which are members of the Commonwealth?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the noble Baroness. We have had one helpful indication from the Speaker of the House in Zimbabwe, who has welcomed international observers. The noble Baroness will know that in many African states international observers are welcomed. We certainly hope that this will be the case in Zimbabwe and that we will have fair and transparent elections.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may associate these Benches with the expression of sympathy of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I am sure that the whole House extends its deep sympathy to the families of those who have lost their lives, both white and black. When the Ministerial team comes from Zimbabwe, will the Foreign Office consider responding to the need for more rapid land reform, but associating that with conditions for the re-establishment of the rule of law; the holding of fair and free elections, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, suggested; and, of course, the calling off of the so-called war veterans—some of whom are nothing of the kind—from the intimidation of farmers, both black and white, on the land of Zimbabwe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness's sentiments of sympathy, which I know are shared on all sides of the House and which I wholeheartedly endorse, particularly bearing in mind, as she rightly said, that the Zimbabweans who have died have been both black and white—eight black and two white—and that all are suffering equally in this terrible situation. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the anticipated Zimbabwean delegation discussions, which should take place later this month, will have a broad remit. We hope that we will be discussing many issues with our Zimbabwean colleagues in this respect—their activities in the DRC, the illegal farm invasions, land reform, economic reform, free and fair elections, and other issues. A whole plethora of issues needs to be addressed and this would be an advantageous position from which to start those discussions.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is desperately disappointing, particularly for those of us who, over the years, have had something to do with that country in its efforts to come to independence? Does she further agree that, whatever happens, the issue of land apportionment in that country is now firmly on the table and that it will have to be dealt with in one way or another? In that connection, and in connection with the violence that is now taking place, can the Minister tell us what contacts the Government are having with the farmers inside Zimbabwe? Are we receiving advice from them? Are we listening to the advice that we are receiving from them? Can the Minister tell us whether

705
or not we agree with what the farmers are saying? Can she undertake that that at least is one group of Zimbabweans to whom she will listen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are listening to all in relation to this terrible situation. We have made a number of contacts. I could list them but it would take rather a long time. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Mr Hain, the Minister of State, have had a good deal of contact with the leaders of the opposition, who have been very clear in their expression of how we should proceed in relation to this matter. The conversation is a comprehensive one. The Government are taking an acute interest in all those who are adversely affected by what is happening now in Zimbabwe.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a large number of Africans and their families—about 16 to 20 per cent of the workforce—are employed on white-owned farms? They are resisting the attacks of the so-called veterans because they would be unemployed in the event of these farms being appropriated. Are the Government giving thought to that element in the equation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are certainly giving thought to the plight of all Zimbabweans. I am very grateful that in this House at least there has been a proper concentration on the effect that these disputes are having on both black and white Zimbabweans. Many in Zimbabwe have said that this is being dealt with as a political issue and not as an issue of race. Many are suffering, both black and white.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, having lived and worked in Zimbabwe. I have noticed that there has been a lack of coverage of the suffering of the farm workers, hundreds of whom have lost their homes due to the actions of the war veterans. Can the Minister confirm that the underlying issue which must be addressed for the future of Zimbabwe is that of land redistribution? Will the British Government take a lead role and mobilise the donor nations in looking at this fundamental problem?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that Her Majesty's Government have always recognised the need for equitable land redistribution and have to date contributed £44 million to a land reform programme. We remain willing to support a land reform programme that is transparent, fair and cost effective and which contributes to the reduction of poverty in Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord will know, these principles were agreed by the Zimbabwean Government and international donors at the land conference held in Harare in September 1998, and we
706
are now looking at a number of proposals submitted by the private sector and NGOs to take this issue further.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not only imperative that free and fair elections take place but that in order for that to be so progress has to be made both on the drawing up of the constituencies and the structuring of the election register? Can she give any further information to the House in order to assure noble Lords that those elections can take place in proper circumstances? Without those two elements, the elections cannot satisfy either of the necessary criteria.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made the Government's view absolutely clear that those elections must be full and fair. We are doing all in our power to encourage the Zimbabwean regime to allow full and fair elections to take place with the assistance of observers. Obviously, Zimbabwe has an ability to make a decision for itself, but we are certainly hoping that, with the encouragement that is coming from all corners of the world and through all agencies, they will listen and we will see a full, fair and transparent system which enables good elections to take place.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, despite what was written in The Times yesterday, is it not the moment to rethink entirely the role of the Commonwealth in this situation? Is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the ministerial action group is due to meet here very shortly? There is a view that it would be ready to send a delegation which would be received in Harare in order to look at the plight of the country and prevent it spiralling downwards. Would that not be a much better approach than getting the EU involved, which, whatever one thinks about it, is clearly an inappropriate body to deal with this very sensitive situation in the heart of Africa?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have very much welcomed assistance from whence it has come. We have had the OAU assistance and assistance from the Commonwealth states as well as from the EU. Therefore, I would not make that distinction. CMAG meets in London on 2nd and 3rd May. That will be an ideal opportunity for Ministers to consider the issue fully and to give anxious consideration to what the next steps should be.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is there an up-to-date electoral roll in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Viscount a specific answer in relation to his question. We have not had an opportunity to interrogate it. It is an outstanding issue and we would wish to have clarification on that point.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the Minister's noble friend Lord Renwick wrote yesterday in The Times that,
"Britain also has yet to take any action to show, other than rhetorically, its condemnation of what is happening. It is little use talking about an ethical foreign policy unless we intend to apply it in cases such as this".
When do the Government intend to apply it to Zimbabwe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and Mr Hain have been very exercised about this issue. There has been regular contact. They have contacted all their international partners. It was as a result of a conversation between the Foreign Secretary and Kofi Annan on 18th April that Kofi Annan has now contacted Mr Mugabe. This Government are being more creative and more active on this issue than virtually any other country.

Postal Services Bill
3.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 7 to 15,

Clauses 79 and 80,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 16 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 31,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32 to 55,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 56 to 66,

Schedule 6,

Clause 67,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 68 to 78,

Clauses 81 and 82,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 83 and 84.—(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of commitment of 10th April be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 55).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders: appointment of sub-committee
"The Committee appointed Lord Carter, Viscount Colville of Culross, Viscount Falkland and Lord Skelmersdale as the members of the sub-committee on revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders.
2. The Queen's Speech
The Committee agreed that the Lord Chancellor should no longer read out The Queen's Speech at the beginning of the resumed sitting after the State Opening of Parliament, but that instead the Speech should be printed in Hansard.
3. Procedure on consideration of Commons amendments
The Committee agreed a simplification of the procedure for considering Commons Amendments or Reasons. In future the Lord in charge of the bill should always move the initial motion (which is usually to agree with the Commons); and any motion to disagree should be tabled and moved as an amendment to the motion of the Lord in charge.'
This would deal with all eventualities according to a standard procedure, similar to that with which the House is familiar for amendments to amendments at other stages of bills. It would apply to motions to disagree with Commons amendments, to insist on Lords amendments, and to make amendments in lieu or consequential amendments. It should replace the present complication of having different procedures for different circumstances, which sometimes leads to confusion.
4. Sub judice
The Committee agreed to a new sub judice resolution as follows:
"Matters sub judice
That, subject to the discretion of the Leader of the House, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:

1. Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(a)(i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.

(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.

709

(b)(i)Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.

(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.

(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.

But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Leader of the House a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions.

2. Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, from the time when the Resolution of the House is passed, until the report is laid before the House.

3. For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) Matters before Coroners Courts or Fatal Accident Inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph 1 (a);

(b) 'Question' includes a supplementary question.

The resolution was recommended by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege because it is desirable that each House should be in the same position to debate a sub judice matter when the circumstances warrant it. The resolution adds to the discretion already exercised by the Leader of the House to allow discussion of matters which are sub judice in cases of ministerial decisions and issues of national importance. In being asked to exercise that discretion the Leader must be given at least 24 hours' notice; and the exercise of the Leader's discretion may not be challenged in the House. These conditions should also apply to the wider discretion which the Committee now recommends should be conferred on the Leader.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Procedure Committee for its work in producing the report. Would it not be an encouragement to the committee, and would it not also lead to increased participation in this House, if, on the day when the report was to be considered, it was on display in the Printed Paper Office among other papers for the day's business?
On the question of the revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders, when is it anticipated that that will be finished? I greatly appreciate and welcome the paragraphs in the report relating to the procedure on consideration of Commons amendments.
Finally, the committee agreed a new sub judice resolution. The Chairman of Committees will appreciate that there are a handful of Members of this House who are not legally qualified. Therefore, will he please explain how the new sub judice resolution differs from the old one?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, the matter is being looked into by Officers of the House and others. I will report the outcome to the noble Lord in due course.
So far as concerns revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders, I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly when the work will be completed. It will be further considered as soon as possible by the Procedure Committee after the proposed sub-committee has dealt with the matter in detail.
710
On the noble Lord's third point on the sub judice rule, I think it best to quote from the minutes of the Procedure Committee, which expand slightly on the report before the House. The minutes state that, first, it should be made clear that the sub judice rule is not absolute: in another place it may be waived at the discretion of the Chair; in your Lordships' House there is no general power of waiver, but in certain circumstances a limited power of waiver has been given to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House may exercise that limited power of waiver to permit discussion of matters relating to any ministerial decision and matters concerning issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essentials of life.
The whole matter was considered thoroughly by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, made up of Members of both Houses. It was the Committee's view that the key to the successful operation of the sub judice rule in another place has been the sensitive use by the Speaker of her discretionary powers to allow discussion of matters sub judice. In that respect, another place has been rather freer than this House has been as regards the exercise of discretion. It is proposed, if the Motion is agreed to and if a subsequent resolution along those lines is also passed by this House, that the rule will be somewhat expanded. It will bring procedure in this House more or less in line with that in another place. I say "more or less", because there is one part that does not apply to this House. In another place Members are allowed to table Motions for leave to bring in a Bill. There is no such Motion in this House and there never has been. That is a slight difference which, for the sake of completeness, ought to be mentioned. If the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, wishes to have any further information on the matter, I shall be glad to try to help outside the Chamber.
With the leave of the House, perhaps I may take this opportunity to mention one other matter. The report contains a proposal relating to the gracious Speech. I was displeased to see a report in The Times on 14th April—and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who does not know that 1 am mentioning this—claiming that,
"Lord Irvine of Lairg has managed to junk more then 500 years of parliamentary tradition. The Lord Chancellor has wriggled out of the laborious duty of repeating the Queen's Speech at the Opening of Parliament".
If your Lordships will forgive me for using a somewhat crude phrase, that is a load of rubbish. I have had occasion to complain previously that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been credited with moves and proposals in this House which should have been credited to others, notably to committees of this House.
In the first place, the proposal did not come from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It came first in advice to the Procedure Committee from the Clerk of the Parliaments. The matter was then considered by the Procedure Committee in a paper which was presented to the Procedure Committee and which the committee accepted and which is now before

711
the House. So it is completely wrong for The Times to complain. In the past, I have found The Times indispensable. I very much hope that it will be more accurate in the future and that I shall not have to dispense with reading it, as I find it on the whole quite valuable.
Perhaps I should also reveal that this is not the first time that the Clerk of the Parliaments has failed to be credited with a proposal over the past several weeks. So perhaps I may enlighten the media outside with a further fact. The House will recall that, not very long ago, your Lordships approved a proposal concerning an entitlement to sit on the steps of the Throne for, in future, the eldest child of a Peer. That was duly considered by the Offices Committee and by this House, and was agreed. It was a proposal to include daughters as well as sons. So it is only right that credit should be given where it is due. Let us live in hope. When I was in broadcasting journalism many years ago, we tended to pride ourselves on accuracy. It is not now as it was in my day!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees agree that it was not the Clerk of the Parliaments who gave the advice that the Lord Chancellor should do away with his breeches and buckled shoes?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am interested to hear that remark. If it was not the Clerk of the Parliaments, the noble Earl has not enlightened us as to who it was. I said that it was the Clerk of the Parliaments who tendered this suggestion to the Offices Committee. After the committee had approved it, your Lordships embraced it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the Clerk of the Parliaments that he was able to persuade the Procedure Committee to do away with the altogether boring reading of the Queen's Speech, which most people had already heard or read. It was a chore that all Members of the House had to put up with. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing gratitude that this is now to be done away with.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, speaks for itself. Most, if not all, noble Lords will be aware that, following the presentation of these reports, there is a debate rather than a question and answer session. Therefore, it is the duty of the Member of your Lordships' House who moves the Motion to make an all-embracing wind-up speech at the end of the debate.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. Does the noble Lord agree that the House would be assisted if, when a new version of a complicated rule such as sub judice was published in a
712
report, the particular changes were notified and made clear; otherwise, very few people would be able to recite the old rule from memory?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there is not a resolution before your Lordships' House. The terms of a proposed resolution are included in the report of the Procedure Committee. After the combined Easter and May Day Bank Holiday Recess the resolution, which is to be moved by the Leader of the House, will be placed before your Lordships for consideration. As to the distinctions, I shall look into the matter. If any additional help is available before the resolution is moved it will be provided. But I am sure that the resolution itself will be clear, as I hope it is from the terms of the report.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can clarify one matter to which he referred earlier. The Leader of the House is given a discretion. Is it only a positive discretion or is it also a negative one; in other words, can the Leader of the House stop debate on a matter which is covered by the general clause—I do not refer to the detailed provision—or can she only allow discussion, as it were, which would otherwise not be appropriate?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the whole the discretion is negative, in that the Leader of the House would normally advise your Lordships that the matter was sub judice and therefore it should not be referred to. I make that qualification at the outset of my response to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, because if on an appropriate occasion the Leader of the House advises waiver in one or other of the circumstances intimated in the proposed resolution, that may be seen as a proposal to deal with the matter in a positive way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
3.23 p.m.
Lord Rixrose to call attention to the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and to developments in the provision and planning of community care services for disabled and elderly people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a happy conjunction of circumstance this debate coincides with the inauguration of the Disability Rights Commission which for the first time provides a powerful watchdog for the rights of disabled people. We wish the chairman, Bert Massie, and his fellow commissioners every success in their future endeavours. Many of us who are to speak this afternoon have fought for those rights over the years and are delighted to have a statutory body to take on that role. We signed up to the cause of disabled people in those heady days when disability was becoming a social policy priority and social security, social services, education and public

713
attitudes were all being realigned in the interests of disabled people. I feel honoured, therefore, in this short debate to celebrate the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, which, with the support of both Houses, became an Act 30 years ago.
The years 1970 and 1971 were particularly good. One had the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; the White Paper on learning disability Better Services, attendance allowance and invalidity benefit and the Education (Handicapped Children) Act which ensured education for children with severe learning disability who had hitherto been excluded from the education system. Looking back, I recall an anxiety to discover and explore new ways to spend money, as opposed to the disposition in recent years (fulfilled or not) to reduce public expenditure and the new orthodoxy of a lot more work and rather less welfare. If I remember correctly, we had 10-year plans at about that time. We also had the fruits of the Government Survey of Disability, in the creation of which the noble Lord, Campbell of Croy, played a significant part. It was a remarkably new experience to have some credible figures on which to base longer-term policy decisions, although the use of those figures to produce estimates of the number of people likely to qualify for the new disability benefits was as much an act of faith as a parade of knowledge.
We have come a long way in a comparatively short space of time, particularly in the field of learning disability. Noble Lordships will forgive me if, as President of Mencap, I am biased in that direction. I am sure that other noble Lords will apply the necessary touch to the tiller. The statistical baseline for the learning disability White Paper in 1971 was 1968–69, which was only a year or two after the population of the old "mental handicap" hospitals had peaked. Today only about 3,000 people with learning disabilities still live in hospitals, and the 60,000 to 70,000 hospital population has become a 60,000 to 70,000 care-in-the-community population.
The children who were denied education because the}' were deemed ineducable now almost universally attend school, and a good number have gone on to further education. Some have successfully completed Open University courses. In particular, several hundred have completed a course designed with the help of Mencap. Thirty years ago we talked about people; now we talk with people who have learning disabilities and, in the process, learn a good deal.
But some things have not changed. Much the same proportion of adults with severe learning disabilities now live with their families as they did in 1969, despite the population being older and more severely disabled. Some of them are the same people. For them and their families inevitably there is a sense that nothing much has changed, except a diminution in the ability to cope with the passing of the years.
Other noble Lords will deal in more detail with some of the themes that cluster around the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the Community Care Act. In my remarks I want to pick out some of the main themes and say a little more about the learning
714
disability strategic review which is now in progress. There is much to celebrate. I want to highlight the goods things, not just the deficiencies, substantial though they still are.
I intended to describe those main themes as the "Munroes of community care". However, the mountaineers and Scots in your Lordships' House are conscious of the number of Munroes and therefore will be apprehensive as to the length of my speech, which is still limited to 15 minutes. I shall be more selective and pick out just seven themes in this overview: the shift from discretionary services to rights; the importance of employment in daytime occupation; the controversy over charging; the Scylla and Charybdis of funding and rationing; the role of advocacy; the focus on individuals; and, predictably, short-term breaks.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was about three things: the identification of disabled people, their involvement and their rights. Involvement and rights go together, in that people should be listened to and at least have the right to some of the things that they say they need to balance out the disadvantages imposed on them by society because of their impairments. Twenty years ago the NHS and Community Care Act dealt with process rather than rights, and that perhaps accounts for the gap between expectations and what has been achieved under the Act. Without the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, those parts of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 which have been implemented and our old friend the National Assistance Act 1948, the Community Care Act might be characterised as being about paper rather than people. In context, however, it offers something like a right to recognition, assessment, a statement of needs and wishes and at least an indication of what will be delivered.
My hope is that the rights agenda is now, with direct payments and the development of specific service standards, beginning to loom larger with fewer "ifs" and "buts". Across the rights path lies the shadow of the Gloucester judgment on which no doubt other noble Lords may wish to expound. Recognising that that judgment reflected the reality that local authorities cannot spend money they do not have and would be unwise to plan on the assumption that they can, I want to link it in with rationing and resources.
There is a very real dilemma here. The Government say that they are spending more money; and they are. The local authorities say that they do not have enough and are having to cut back. Clearly they do not have enough and are having to cut back. The daughter of a friend of mine is having £20,000 per annum pruned from her funding. Needs are increasing. Needs are being better recognised. Governments have consistently allocated less than most local authorities actually spend on social services; and once increased allocations cannot be topped up from other sources, the gap between needs and resources means cutbacks. When I managed a theatre, spent more on the production than I received from the audience, and

715
could not bridge the gap by selling programmes and chocolates, I had problems: the risk of having to put on "Hamlet" without the prince.
A good many people feel that their local authority has splendid plans, high principles, good intentions but no prince. That is why consultations on future developments sometimes receive a dusty response. People say, "Well, they know what we need now, and they can't deliver; why waste time asking for future developments which they won't be able to deliver either?" To try to bridge the funding gap, local authorities, under the pressure of government expectation, are charging for services. This results in family carers who are already having to carry the burden and some of the cost of community care having to carry more burden because they opt out of services, or more cost because they have to pay for services. Mencap has had people on the phone actually in tears saying that they cannot afford the cost of what they desperately need.
I hope that when Ministers make their announcements about charging, they will at last bite the bullet and standardise, if they do not abolish, charges. If charges continue, disabled people must be left with enough money to stay above the poverty line. That is not always the case today.
I want to run together two of my other themes: advocacy and treating people as individuals. If our services were to be group solutions for groups of people, we would by definition not have individuality, and we would not be much bothered about advocacy. If, on the other hand, we accept that the desired outcome is individual solutions addressing individual needs in the light of individual choices, we need advocates. I signed my contract as Secretary-General for Mencap almost 20 years ago today. As secretary-general I helped to found the Advocacy Alliance. But without effective advocacy I think it is clear that we cannot secure civil rights in line with the Disability Discrimination Act, rationalisation of decision making under the Government's "making decisions" proposals, or appropriate access to social services, lifelong education or healthcare. It is equally clear that most people who can talk for themselves cannot readily secure the attention of those who should be listening to them, and that most people who need independent advocacy simply do not have it. I hope that when replying, the Minister can offer us some glimmers of hope here.
I turn to the last of my overarching themes: short-term breaks and employment. Seen from the perspective of disabled people and family carers, both are concerned with trying to secure as far as possible a normal life. Short-term breaks give the disabled person and the family carer a chance to enjoy personal space, to do their own thing, to grow apart without falling apart. A Mencap colleague is having to give up her work for Mencap because she cannot secure decent respite for her severely disabled son while she does her voluntary work for Mencap. Employment means for family carers and for disabled persons doing what most people of working age want to do, and enjoying
716
the wider contacts and the possibility of higher income which go with that. But 90 per cent of severely disabled people of working age do not have paid employment.
I acknowledge the Government's carers initiative even if the early evidence is not terribly encouraging in terms of the extra money securing either innovation or allocation to short-term breaks. I acknowledge, too, the positive aspects of the New Deal and the awkwardly-named "One". Some disabled people are now doing paid work who would not have had the opportunity without the recent initiatives. But I would welcome two reassurances. One is that the Government will continue to encourage agencies to provide individually tailored short-term breaks and discourage doctrinaire approaches to respite, which assume that only one model, and that commonly the cheapest, is right. "We only have family-based respite" is not a principle policy to be warmly welcomed. It is an abandonment of responsibility for those for whom that model at this time is not appropriate.
On employment, I seek the assurance that this will be encouraged but not enforced on those with substantial disabilities, and that there will be recognition in day service policies of the reality that employment can only provide some of what is needed for some of the people for some of the time. Shutting the day centres on the ground that everyone has got a job would, I believe, be a little like the heady and ultimately fatal optimism of Marie Antoinette that those without bread could fill their bellies with cake.
Finally, I turn to the learning disability strategic review. I welcome wholeheartedly that the original White Paper may be replaced 30 years later by a new White Paper, and the way in which interested parties—and not least people with learning disabilities themselves—are being involved in developing the new policies. I am conscious that we shall not see the end product until the end of this year or the beginning of next year, and I recognise that the Minister will not want to commit himself firmly at this stage; but I offer three propositions for comment if the Minister feels so inclined.
First, there is clearly a case for a policy document of the White Paper kind spelling the whole range of Whitehall responsibilities, rather than something more modest such as an interdepartmental circular. Secondly, it would be in line with the focus on outcomes judged by individual experiences to build into that White Paper personal stories which show the huge progress made and personal aspirations on which the Government intend to deliver. Thirdly, it should help to maintain the impetus for implementation over the next few years to have a central advisory committee on learning disability support and opportunities backed by a research programme and network.
I conclude by hoping that I have learned over the years to avoid both the cynicism of failing to recognise what is good and hopeful and the unreasonable optimism which ignores what is palpably bad or doomed. I have seen so many people with learning disabilities achieve what it was said they never would that I have high hopes that from the legislative base of

717
the CSDP Act, and the measures which have succeeded it, and through the current review, we shall see over the next 30 years at least as many improbably successful things as we have seen over the past 30 years. I also have high hopes that we shall measure outcomes in individual lives and not just in statistics. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act made the jump from "the disabled" to "disabled people". I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords. I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It is highly appropriate for a distinguished Cross-Bencher to have opened this debate: for those who laboured with me to enact my Bill were not of one party. They were of all parties—and of none—but of one mind. They were determined to create for disabled people an Act they could call their own: to help to reduce their dependence on others, to help them to live as normally as possible in their own homes, with their own families, and to have the same opportunities as everyone else to contribute to the life and work of their society.
However, that was then widely seen as an impossible dream. In 1969–70 no one knew even approximately how many disabled people lived in Britain. They were mostly seen or heard only by their families or, if locked in institutions, by those controlling their lives. To talk then of as-of-right cash benefits for disabled people and their carers was to invite ridicule. Local services were wholly discretionary and often non-existent, but council leaders were serenely satisfied with the status quo. That is how things were when, against all the odds, my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill became law in 1970.
For the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to have opened this debate is most appropriate for another reason. In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act the term "disabled person" includes, and always has included, what might be called the noble Lord's constituency. The symbolism of the wheelchair is powerful, and rightly so, but the Act also embraces millions of people with impaired hearing, impaired sight, impaired intellectual functioning and learning disabilities which can affect mobility but do not involve using a wheelchair.
For a Back-Bench MP, first place in the Private Members' ballot is the most coveted prize in the lottery of parliamentary life. But Ministers whose departments are affected by a Back-Bencher's Bill may not share their delight. The late Richard Crossman, then Secretary of State for Social Services, was not best pleased when he heard that I intended to present a Bill to improve the well-being and status of disabled people and their carers. As Tam Dalyell, then Crossman's PPS, writing to me some years later recalled,
"I well remember Dick trying to bully you into either changing drastically or dropping the Bill at more than one point—in vain."
Dick Crossman was not the only Minister who initially wanted me to drop the whole idea. Education Ministers asked why my Bill proposed help for people with dyslexia—a condition which they said "simply
718
doesn't exist". To which I replied "Then it won't cost you anything!" Official reaction to my Bill's provisions for helping deafblind children and those with autism, like the proposal for an institute of hearing research, was even less supportive. Thus the Bill's prospects looked bleak.
The pessimist, they say, is an optimist who has been given the facts. Happily there were those all across Parliament who, despite knowing all the facts about the extent of ministerial opposition and the heavy odds against my ever securing a money resolution, remained optimistic that the Bill could succeed. In another place they included my very good friend Jack Ashley, as he then was; the late John Astor; Lewis Carter-Jones; the late Sir Neil Marten; the late Laurie Pavitt; and the late Maurice Macmillan; and in your Lordships' House there were my noble friend Lord Longford, then a recent former Leader of this House, who sponsored the Bill with all his customary kind humanity; my friends, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth; my noble friend Lady Serota; the noble Lord, Lord Cullen; and the late Lady Pat Lewellyn-Davies.
Everyone who worked to enact our Bill will remember how often and how close we came to disaster. But it was Dick Crossman's main Bill of that parliamentary session which hit the rocks while ours sailed safely by. The Bill became an Act of 29 sections. It imposed new duties and responsibilities on 12 departments of state and became the model for legislation across the world. It amended 39 existing Acts of Parliament in the interests of disabled people, including such major statutes as the Public Health Act 1936, the Education Act 1944, the National Health Service Act 1946 and the Housing Act 1957. Moreover, it was in debates on our Bill that the terms "social exclusion" and "community care" first came into vogue.
In the decade after the Bill's enactment huge leaps were recorded in the numbers of people identified as disabled; millions were helped by the provision of aids, by adaptations to their homes and by the Act's five sections on access to the built environment, the first such legislation anywhere in the world. It is estimated that, in its first 25 years, 12 million people in England were helped under Section 2 of the Act alone. In Scotland, over a shorter period, 1.9 million were helped. Those are minimal figures, since they do not, for example, include 1.7 million Orange Badge holders and countless millions more beneficiaries, here and abroad, of its access provisions.
But this debate is also about what is happening now. In the very short time left to me I want to comment, as promoter of the Act, on the perverse—in fact bizarre— judgment in the case of Regina v. Gloucestershire County Council and the Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Barry (the so-called Gloucester judgment). Since that judgment, the provisions of Section 2 of the Act have been trampled on in many parts of Britain. Those responsible for the judgment seemed to think I drafted it on the back of an envelope. In fact, it was drafted with unfailing help from the leading parliamentary draftsman of his day, the father of a disabled child, whose expertise was gifted in his own

719
spare time. The policy intention of ensuring that help for disabled people would in future depend not on where they lived but strictly on the extent of individual need was made utterly clear at all stages of the proceedings of the Bill. The drafting is also clear—as clear as Britain's foremost parliamentary draftsman could make it.
Section 2 opened up the opportunity for a life of dignity for disabled people. Now it has been put in abeyance by judge-made law in direct defiance of a statute that was far better drafted than most legislation I have seen in my 36 years of parliamentary life. The result is documented in graphic detail in Out of Service, a dossier of distress published by the Needs Must coalition of disability organisations, which shows that one shameful consequence of the Gloucestershire judgment is the denial to many housebound disabled people even of the right to a bath, now one of the most fundamental of human rights and well respected in our prisons.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, saw—clearly after studying the parliamentary proceedings on Section 2—it was no part of our intention to turn services for disabled people into a postal code lottery. For others to suggest the contrary was a crude and ludicrous distortion of the parliamentary record.
I know that my noble friend the Minister recognises that the current crisis in community care—for which disabled people and their carers all over the country blame the Gloucestershire judgment and the now almost equally notorious Powys judgment—is placing an increasingly daunting strain on the NHS. It is a crisis that demands urgent action. Not to act now to reverse the immense damage of these judgments would be to dishonour those in all parties who worked long and hard and with deep commitment and sincerity to achieve the enactment 30 years ago of a measure that a senior French legislator was soon afterwards to describe as a moment critique for disabled people everywhere.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I first declare an interest. I was wounded and partially disabled in the Second World War, and have received a war disability pension since leaving hospital more than a year after the war.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on initiating this debate. He did dedicated work leading Mencap, and we worked together in 1981, when we were both playing parts in the International Year of Disabled People.
I am also glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, because the 1970 Act would never have reached the statute book without his resolve and skilful piloting.
I am glad to speak on the Motion recording the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As I am limited to seven
720
minutes, I shall concentrate on that part of the Motion, in the hope that that is the most useful contribution I can make.
I was much involved over 30 years ago, when I was in opposition and in the shadow Cabinet, and later when I had become a Cabinet Minister, in putting parts of the Act into effect.
The Act started as a Private Member's Bill introduced in the other place by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, after he had come first in the annual ballot in November 1969. The noble Lord deserves the greatest credit. As he has publicly announced, and repeated today, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr Richard Crossman, disapproved of what he was doing and tried to stop the Bill going forward. The noble Lord received no help from the Government in drafting the Bill, although such help can normally be expected. But he persevered with determination and, I am glad to say, with success.
I had experienced similar, but worse, treatment a year before, when I was successful in the ballot in 1968. My Private Member's Bill, entitled the "Disablement Commission Bill", was lost when a Division was forced by the Government, a Labour government, at the end of a Second Reading debate, with the government's whipping applied.
The only excuse that can now be given for such treatment is that my Bill was 30 years before its time, particularly as in the past two years we have helped to pass the Disability Rights Commission Act—and the Disability Rights Commission begins its life today, more than 30 years after I introduced my Bill!
I entered the other place five years before the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and at that time had been depressed by the absence in the country of help with disabilities not caused by war or industrial injury. However, I was on the Back Benches for only a year and a half, after which I had to apply myself to other subjects from the Government Front Bench.
Owing to the limited time available, the Bill which the noble Lord introduced in 1969 applied only to England and Wales. During its Committee and Report stages, I managed to arrange for parts of it to be extended to Scotland. A year or two later when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I was able to complete its application to Scotland.
The Bill had almost completed its passage through Parliament when a general election was called for June 1970. Other Bills fell by the wayside in the normal way, but I am pleased to say that inter-party agreement was reached for this Bill to be reintroduced early in the following Parliament. The Conservatives won the election and honoured the agreement. The Bill was reintroduced and was quickly passed into law. I became Secretary of State for Scotland and, because both health and local government were totally devolved to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Office, I had the welcome duty of putting parts of the Act into effect north of the Border.
The 1970 Act was a bright beacon on the way to improving ordinary life for disabled people. For the next 24 years, further legislation on disablement was

721
attempted but only in Private Members' Bills. However, in 1994–95, a giant step was taken when for the first time a government introduced a Bill on the subject. It became the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; the DDA.
I am sorry sometimes to hear derogatory remarks that the DDA is "flawed". When asked why, the reason given is that it does not cover enough. That criticism is a misuse of English. To give the impression that the DDA is defective because it does not deal with every part of the huge range of issues affecting disabled people is misleading and a disservice to disabled people and their carers, who are already discovering much in it to help them.
No Act could have covered the whole field. We should have still been waiting for the DDA if that had been attempted. But I confidently expect another government Bill to be brought forward in due course to continue the process. In 1995 the DDA carried out more than 20 Private Members' Bills could have achieved. It even tackled the difficult and complex subject of transport; and it was the first government measure on disablement.
As I have one minute left, I turn to the services made possible for local authorities to provide under Section 2 of the 1970 Act. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the decision in the Gloucestershire case. I am greatly concerned about the many reports of the reduction and withdrawal of services that are necessary for disabled people to live independently. Furthermore, I refer the Government to the "Needs Must" campaign and to its recent report, Out of Service. I earnestly hope that the Government will take that report fully into account.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, during the comparatively brief time I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have come to appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, often has the best lines. We know well that he has great timing but never more so than today. When the cast list for the debate appears, my name will probably appear down near that of third electrician or someone similar, but none the less I want to thank him for raising this timely debate today.
When I noted the title of the debate I wondered whether several current Members of your Lordships' House who were responsible for the passage of the Bill 30 years ago might line up to take a bow. I am glad that they did and I salute collectively what they did. It set a mark from which all services for disabled people will be measured.
Today, as we enter the era of PCGs, clinical governance and national service frameworks, it serves us well to reflect on the intentions set out in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, to assess the effects of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and, learning lessons from both, to state clearly not only what are acceptable levels of services and social care, but how such standards should be determined and by whom.
722
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act refers to the provision to a disabled person of,
"adaptations, services and any additional facilities to secure his greater safety, comfort and convenience".
It refers to services such as practical assistance at home; assistance obtaining access to wireless, television, library or other recreational facilities; games or outings, or other recreational facilities outside the home; and the provision of, or assistance with, travel to or from such facilities.
That list, were it to be reproduced in a community care plan or health improvement plan today, would look out of place not because of the language but because items such as those simply would not appear in a list of priorities for any social services department. Individual older or disabled people may realise the importance of leisure and transport, but it is doubtful whether the community care budgets for older people would stretch that far.
Over the past 30 years a paradox has developed in which the direct involvement of older and disabled people in the planning and evaluation of services has greatly increased. The National Health Service and Community Care Act placed upon local authorities and health authorities a requirement to consult users about the planning and provision of services. Consult they did, zealously so in some cases, and involvement of older and disabled people became, first, an expectation and then the norm. However, at the same time, the right to services was eroded as eligibility criteria were drawn ever tighter. Mary people, although more involved, witnessed the demise of services which they saw to be important; services such as home helps.
Many people's 65th birthday is not a time of celebration. In terms of social care, they move from social services' "younger adult" budget to the "older people" budget. At that time, although their physical and health needs may not change, the services which they receive and their right to receive them fall dramatically. We know that the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health, among others, use age as a defining criteria. People who become disabled after 65 do not qualify for the disabled living allowance. Although many of them receive an attendance allowance, there is no mobility component to that benefit.
At the beginning of this decade, against a background of economic prosperity and in the context of the Government's policy of combating social exclusion, basic questions about the social care of older and disabled people remain to be addressed. Why are thousands of older people losing their mobility because there is no one to cut their toe-nails? Why are so many people with moderate disabilities having to pay for the help they need, such as home help, than was ever the case in the past?
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, raised a very important question: is a bath a social bath or a medical bath? It is neither; it is a human right. That is a most important answer. When the Human Rights. Act 1998

723
comes into force later this year, many of the issues which noble Lords have raised about levels of care will become challengeable in the courts.
My suggestion to the Minister today is that we should avoid the need for individual older and disabled people to suffer indignities and take their cases to court by saying now that we have learnt one of the most important lessons from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: that rights without resources do not mean very much. We do older and disabled people no favours by giving them frameworks and approaches which are inclusive and contain the terminology of inclusion if, at the end of the day, there are simply not enough resources to make something happen for them.
Thirty years ago, many noble Lords put down a marker that social care was concerned with the safety, comfort and convenience of disabled and older people. Today, we talk about social inclusion. The best thing we can do is to put on record in the House today that, 30 years on, we have a clearer understanding and can employ better words to express the rights of disabled and older people to be included in society. It is not only for their personal and individual better health; it is for our greater benefit.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his very timely debate, and I exit the stage.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rix, both on winning the ballot so that we can celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and on the masterly and comprehensive portrayal that he has given of life for disabled people over the succeeding years.
When the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, won the ballot in 1969, he could have taken the easy road to fame with a pre-written, non-controversial Bill. However, as noble Lords have already heard from the noble Lord and from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, by his unstinting efforts he instead transformed a Bill, strenuously opposed by many and without a money resolution, into an Act of considerable importance for people with disabilities.
I was honoured to make my maiden speech at Second Reading of the Bill when it was introduced into this House by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. My noble friend Lady Masham also made her maiden speech, as did Lord Ingleby. The fourth Member of the mobile Bench was Lord Crawshaw, and I should like to pay tribute to them all for working tirelessly for disabled people over many years.
I spoke then on the need for improved outdoor mobility help for disabled people, including those too disabled to drive themselves. Therefore, I was particularly delighted when, a few years later, as Britain's first Minister for disabled people, the noble Lord introduced the mobility allowance. I should also like to mention the huge contribution made over the
724
years by Sir Peter Large. He briefed me for my maiden speech and I am much indebted, too, for his thoughts today.
The Act did not solve every difficulty faced by disabled people but it helped to solve many. It put disabled people firmly on the map; it gave them confidence; and it established a sound basis for further progress. Lately, however, that progress has slowed down and in some cases has even gone into reverse. The emphasis now seems to be on children and child poverty and elderly people and pensioners' poverty. Regrettably, the Government's grand design for tackling poverty does not appear to cover the poverty of disability.
If that sounds carping on a day when the Disability Rights Commission makes its debut, in the year that all black cabs become accessible, and access and education opportunities have improved, I would ask noble Lords to consider. We have seen the abolition of the severe disablement allowance and the introduction of means-testing for incapacity benefit. That means that for single people aged 45 or over the means test will take effect when their annual income reaches a mere £7,900. How can anyone on that income be an appropriate target for means testing? The entitlement to a contributory benefit of a married man under 45 will be completely wiped out when his annual pension income reaches £15,500.I ask noble Lords to contrast that with the upper earnings limit of the new children's tax credit, which will be approximately £38,500. How can one reconcile that with the proposals that every pensioner, regardless of health or wealth, be issued with a free half-fare bus pass, an annual £150 winter fuel bonus and a free telly, to boot, for everyone over the age of 75?
As the Needs Must coalition report shows—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already said and as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who is to follow, will make very plain— services for disabled people who try to live independently in the community are being inexorably reduced. The introduction of both the minimum wage and holiday entitlements has increased the cost of care. That extra cost must sometimes be paid for by cutting the total amount of care received. As many local authorities increase those charges, too many people are finding it impossible to afford all the personal help that they need.
Although it is true that there has been some additional expenditure on carers, the concentration on carers is not always to the benefit of the disabled people themselves. If we are to be true to the spirit of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, we must redress that imbalance. On 17th April, in winding up the Second Reading of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described the Bill as,
"an attack on the poverty of children and pensioners".—[Official Report, 17/4/99; cols. 520-521.]
The poverty of many disabled people is crying out for a similar attack.

725
Finally, on a more cheerful but equally important note, I return to the subject of my maiden speech: mobility. I welcome the Government's announcement of a review of the Orange—now Blue—Badge scheme introduced by the 1970 Act. It has been a huge help to disabled people who are dependent on cars to escape the confines of their home and who wish to travel. In recent years, as traffic and traffic restraint measures have increased, so, too, has the demand for badges. Many local authorities and some GPs have been lax and over-generous in issuing badges to people. Some badge-holders have been careless in allowing them to be used by others. Enforcement of the rules is at best half-hearted and often non-existent.
I firmly believe that we need legislation to allow the police and traffic wardens to inspect badges. I had not realised that they are not allowed to do so. They can ask someone only to show them the details on the inside of the badge. If the person refuses, they can check whether the sex of the person matches the name on the badge. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) made a number of important recommendations to improve the operation of the scheme. I very much hope that Ministers will adopt those so that disabled people in genuine need can remain mobile and move around with freedom.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for initiating this debate so splendidly, and I warmly endorse all the proper tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Morris. I had founded the All-Party Disablement Group some time before he won the ballot for his Bill. Together with a wonderful Tory MP, John Astor, we worked with my noble friend Lord Morris on that Bill. We discovered then that disabled people were held almost in contempt. They were pitied and patronised and had no rights whatever. That was a time when we needed legislation and that is precisely what the Bill, which became an Act, did. It provided new rights for disabled people which they had never had before, and it imposed obligations on local authorities. That was the great achievement of my noble friend Lord Morris.
It is great to see the Labour Government carrying on the tradition of helping disabled people. I am sure that many noble Lords will have heard the various announcements made in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I congratulate the Minister for disabled people, Margaret Hodge, on the marvellous work that she is doing for disabled people. Only this morning I was with her for the launch of the Disability Rights Commission. That is a marvellous step forward. Thanks to the Labour Government, the commission will do more in the next three years to transform the lives of disabled people than we have managed to do in 30 years. That kind of tough organisation was needed to enforce the Disability Discrimination Act.
Despite progress made, there is still much to do for disabled people at present. There are two examples that I should like to mention: first, the postcode lottery for personal services; secondly, the means assessment
726
of personal care. It is interesting that when the postcode lottery in the National Health Service was exposed, the Government said that they would tackle it and resolve it as soon as possible. That is fine; we all admire that kind of stance. There is now a postcode lottery for personal services but the Government do not say, "Right, we will solve this. We will deal with it immediately". They are making some attempts but nothing like the kind of vigorous, almost sustained attack that they are making on the National Health Service. Why do they not do that for personal services? I believe that too few people appreciate how vital are these personal services. I hope that the Labour Government will change their tack and attack the problem of personal services being postcoded with the same kind of vigour that they are using for the National Health Service.
The Gloucester judgment has been mentioned. That allowed local authorities to take resources into account. I interpret that differently. I regard that as an opportunity to plead poverty and to cut or remove the vital services for disabled people. It is all very well to speak about "rights without resources"—in that admirable speech made by the noble Baroness. That was a very good phrase. We have to provide the rights and it is up to government, national and local, to provide the resources. I admit they may be short of resources but I object to selecting disabled peoples' services as the scapegoats, as the very first people and the very first line of attack. If they are short of resources, they should look all across the board and not select disabled people as the first victims. Let them deal with disabled people and then solve the problems in the best way they can. That is the plea I make.
The Government display a curious attitude as regards the Gloucester judgment, especially the Department of Health. In a recent Parliamentary Question that I asked, the Government indicated that they were content that local authorities should take account of their resources when providing those services. The Minister then assured me that local authorities were under a duty to arrange the services. The Government cannot have it both ways. If local authorities take account of their resources, that is absolutely incompatible with a duty to provide the care—utterly incompatible. The Government must make up their mind; are they standing by their original interpretation that resources should be taken into account? If so they should bring forward legislation to change the law. If they adopt the idea that the provision should be made anyhow, that the rights should come first, then they do not accept the law as it stands. One way or the other the Government are wrong. One way or the other they should ensure that disabled people really have those rights.
My final point is on the Independent Living Fund. I cannot understand why the Government should means test the Independent Living Fund. Why do they do that? I find that disabled people working, especially severely disabled people working, are conforming with what the Government want. They have gone from welfare to work. But what do the Government do? They hit them with a means test. It is quite

727
unreasonable. I believe that the personal care which severely disabled people receive should be given to them as a right and they should not be hit in the way that the Government are hitting them.
I have to leave it there as my time is up. All I would add is that I hope the Government will think again and do what they can for disabled people far more in the future than they have done in the past on those two issues.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rix for having chosen this subject for debate. Thirty years ago I made my maiden speech on what became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I am told it was on this very day 30 years ago. I also celebrate 30 years as a Member of your Lordships' House this year.
When I look back over the years I often compare facilities and services for disabled people with a game of snakes and ladders. There are advances and cooperation, cutbacks and fragmentation, and bad communication, forgetting disabled people exist.
Last night I took my usual route to have supper in the Home Room, through the Royal Gallery, down in the Sovereign's Staircase lift, across Royal Court, avoiding the puddles, and up the ramp. I managed to wriggle under the scaffolding only to find the entrance door locked. A helpful member of staff crossing the courtyard unlocked the door. However, when I came out, the door was locked again. Fortunately, some guests were leaving a reception. Together with a security guard they lifted me down the steps. I told them that when some other work had been undertaken a ramp had been provided. I am sorry to say that this incident is so typical of what happens throughout the country. People do not have a foolproof system of checking accesses, which is covered by Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
I was speaking to one of the elderly and distinguished Peers in your Lordships' House yesterday. He told me that he now lives in an Abbeyfield House because he is elderly and infirm. Everything is fine, except that the last meal of the day is at 5 p.m. If someone has been used to having dinner at 8 p.m. this seems early. Could it be that it is at this hour for the convenience of the staff? Is it not time that the wishes of the elderly and disabled people take priority?
I was sorry not to be able to take part in the debate last week on the critical report by the Audit Commission on the provision of disability equipment by the National Health Service. I had an important prior engagement. It has been found that the withdrawal of services, the long delays and the refusal to provide equipment affected carers and other family members as well as the disabled person. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has taken an interest. I hope it will not just be a flash in the pan. For a long time this has been a Cinderella service, with a few people working in miserable conditions, struggling with lack
728
of funds for developing pleasing prosthetic limbs and equipment. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who has to use an artificial foot, told me that the feet used for women, such as herself, are modelled on men's feet and filed down to fit into a woman's shoe. Another friend who uses callipers had to have boots made specially to support her ankles. She waited for months and when they arrived there were two boots for the same foot. Surely we can do better than that. With so many young people having lost limbs due to contracting meningococcal disease, it is important that prosthetic limbs fit well, are comfortable and are cosmetically attractive. There needs to be a national service framework for disablement services throughout the country so that disabled people have a first-class service.
In the past 30 years, the new disaster of HIV/AIDS has hit the world. Patients with AIDS became empowerers. Patients and doctors worked closely together. They have been able to achieve new triple drug treatments and have led the way in better group services and being able to express their needs. We should all work together to prevent all forms of conditions which cause severe disability. Research and better services for all with severe disabilities are needed.
Without good reliable help in the home, there will be disasters. During the past 30 years, there have been many tragedies. One young man who broke his neck in a rugby scrum told me, when he was getting older and his mother became very disabled with arthritis, that he could never go into a residential home. Some time later, he was found drowned in the lily pond in his garden.
Another tetraplegic who had sustained his injury in the Army was recently involved in a car accident with his wife. Not being able to stay longer in hospital and his wife not being able to cope at home, he had to have a residential place until his wife was better. He became depressed and, with the bandage from his arm, somehow managed to hang himself. There is a desperate need for more sensitive understanding of the needs of such people who are a great loss to those who know them.
I conclude on a note of hope. Last week, I attended a parliamentary launch of the Parkinson's Disease Society for specialist nurses. It was heartening to witness three Members of Parliament—one Labour, one Conservative and a Liberal Democrat—all speaking out for better services and understanding. It was good to see three enthusiastic MPs united in a cause.
I hope that the voices of disabled people and their supporters will be heard and that the Audit Commission will continue to produce reports which bring forward a better quality and standard of life for all disabled people.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us, in a previous life, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was noted for the magnificence of his timing. I am glad to see that he has

729
lost none of his touch by enabling us to debate this issue, not only because it is important but also because this is the day on which the Disability Rights Commission is launched.
Looking down the list of speakers today, I am aware that by the standards exemplified by your Lordships' House, I am something of a new kid on the block in these matters. I want to pay sincere tribute to all noble Lords and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, not only for the part that he played in relation to the 1970 Act but also for the other legislation and initiatives which he has spearheaded. I pay tribute also to other noble Lords and Baronesses who are speaking today who have such a fine record. In particular, I wish to mention Lady Seear, Sadly, she is no longer with us but she made a seminal contribution to the development of community care, particularly in relation to carers.
I came into this field only in 1986, when I joined the carers movement. That was just in time to participate in the ultimately successful campaign to extend the invalid care allowance to married women. Also, I was an adviser to Sir Roy Griffiths, as he developed his report on community care, Agenda for Action.
I remind noble Lords of a definition that Kathleen Jones gave of community care in 1972. She said:
"To the politician, community care is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist, it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can be passed to the local authorities for action, or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of a new society in which people really do care; to social services departments, it is a nightmare of heightened public expectations and inadequate resources to meet them. We are only just beginning to find out what it means to the old and the chronic sick".
We might still agree with some of the observations made in that quotation, but we have made progress. There are areas in which improvements have been made and we should celebrate that.
In my judgment, the most significant change is the emphasis now placed on users and carers. I believe that that is the biggest change in 30 years. That is a major contribution and will continue to influence future developments.
When Sir Roy Griffiths said in 1988 that,
"the starting point has to be to identify and respond reasonably and appropriately to the needs of individuals in their particular circumstances",
he was not setting out a truth which was universally acknowledged at the time. The word "user" was unknown and the word "carer" even more so. I have vivid memories of going to conferences where the most unlikely people turned up to hear me speak because the word "carer" had been mis-spelt as "career" and people came to hear me talk about training and professional development, and not the 6 million carers who at that time were completely unrecognised.
When I was a young social worker in the 1960s, people who came to us for help were called "applicants". Some people who worked there had administered the Poor Law and remembered when they were called "supplicants". Then they became "clients", then "recipients", then disabled people and
730
their carers and eventually became users and carers. But applicants do not become users or carers or customers just by changing their name. It is necessary to change the systems with which they come into contact and above all, the attitudes of the professionals with whom they deal.
I believe that we have made progress with those changes in 30 years and that the policies and legislation which have followed are both the result of those changes in attitudes and also have lead them.
The milestones along the way are well known. I have a particular interest in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and in the national carers strategy launched by the Prime Minister last year. The Carers and Disabled Children Bill will shortly come to your Lordships' House and will give us more opportunities for debate.
What the carers movement and all those associated with it in the past 30 years have done—-and I believe it is a record to be proud of—is to turn a private trouble into a public issue. There have been radical changes in community care and the way it is delivered not only in organisational and financial terms but also in terms of professional thinking.
It is one thing to say that users and carers should be at the centre of decision-making but it is another to implement that because that requires a change in the attitude of professionals in relation to sharing; allowing people to make choices that others may not think are appropriate; it is also about risk-taking; and about managing conflict. It is also about developing the confidence of users and carers so that they have enough self-esteem to participate in the consultation processes that are now sometimes offered in a way which is not tokenistic and which result in changes in practice.
It requires too that professionals are prepared to address the imbalance of power which exists in that relationship; to divest themselves of stereotyped images; and perhaps to ask some very difficult questions that we as society must also address. For example, do adult children always have a responsibility to look after their parents and do children have a right to inherit their parents' resources and so on?
The carers movement has an admirable history of pushing us all to address those issues and to look at the rights and needs of carers, recognising them as prime providers of community care but never looking at their needs in conflict with those of the disabled person even though they are inexplicably entwined with them.
I believe that power of the users and carers movement is one of the most important lessons that we have learnt in 30 years. But something else which we have learnt and of which we must take heed is how quickly policy matters change in that area. One example is that the Griffiths review of community care in 1988 made no mention whatever of GP fundholding because it was not even a gleam in anyone's eye in those days. By 1993, it had been introduced and had

731
had a major effect. By 1998, it was gone. So we must remember how quickly circumstances change in that area.
The Care Standards Bill currently passing through another place, the Royal Commission and the Government's response to it—I might even say lack of response to it thus far—and the repercussions of the Gloucester judgment are other matters that we must consider.
In planning for future community care, I plead that we think always of three particular issues. The first is that community care is not and will never be a cheap option. Good quality community care is expensive to provide and resources must be made available to provide it. Secondly, successful community care depends on co-operation and partnership between all the agencies involved: health, social services, the voluntary sector and families, each recognising the value of the contribution made by the others. Thirdly, and lastly, but certainly not least, it is predicated on the unpaid care of families and communities, given willingly and with an amount of love and duty which offers a shining example to any society.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for the debate today. It is one further addition to the excellent work he has carried out so often on the same subject in this House. We all welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter.
I was a dentist in general practice when the Act was introduced. My only awareness of disabled people was in terms of patients who came for treatment. I found that they were a remarkably independent group. Often, they had their own ways of getting in and out of the chair or from the waiting room to the surgery and they could manage better without one trying to help. Interference was not always the most useful policy. I remember in particular one woman who was blind and wore a heavy calliper on her leg. She managed her life so well and was such a marvellously happy person.
We tend to believe that anyone disabled might not necessarily be such a happy and forward-looking person. That has not been my experience. I have found that such people often have a remarkably strong will and a great, good spirit that keeps them going. Sadly, there are a few, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, for whom things go wrong. That is not so good.
At the time of the Act, I was also a young councillor. We were absolutely staggered when it landed on our doorstep. We were terrified about the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was absolutely right in saying that no one knew how many disabled people there were. We were told that we must carry out a survey to discover the number. This was in about 1973. We had had the oil crisis and everyone was worried about his financial situation. No one knew how much the survey would cost. We decided that if we found a huge number of people requiring help, we could not possibly deal with the situation. Eventually, the
732
council decided to carry out a 10 per cent survey immediately from which it could work out needs and thus develop provision. But even the 10 per cent survey was a major exercise.
At that time disabled people seemed almost to conceal the fact that they were disabled. Noble Lords have described how no one wanted to be pitied and no one wanted to feel embarrassed by asking for something from others. Fortunately, over time we have seen a complete change in that attitude. My recent experience of self-assessment of disabled people—which I have quoted in your Lordships' House before—worries me in terms of the National Health Service. If one applies to be considered for a board, one may tick that one is disabled and one will be granted an interview.
I interviewed one such person. We had actually interviewed several, but we had to reconvene because one whom we had omitted, believing him to be totally unsuitable, demanded to be seen and there was an obligation to see him. When he came in he looked fit. We said, "What's your disability?" and he replied, "I suffer from asthma." One of the interviewing panel was a doctor. He said, "But you seem to be in very good health." The patient replied, "Oh yes, it is just for a couple of days in the summer." That did not seem to justify his right to tick the box by which he was guaranteed an interview. That kind of fiddle, or whatever it was, does not help those who are genuinely disabled. But it is a rarity and it is not something we need to discuss too much.
The terminology has changed too. People used to be called "registered disabled". I remember when there were two Bills going through your Lordships' House; one abolishing the term "registered disabled" and the other containing a whole lot of clauses to cover the registered disabled. In the debate I asked the Minister why we were putting into one Bill what we were abolishing in the other. The matter was discovered and put right.
Access to buildings—which we all believe is essential—is still not 100 per cent, even in new buildings. Buildings are still going up which do not have access. Nowhere is really much worse—unless it has improved miraculously recently without my knowledge—than Heathrow airport. When I have arrived at Heathrow and the escalators have been out of order, I have asked people, "How do you get down?" and they have replied, "You've got to walk down." A non-working escalator is of course much worse than one which is working. The gradient on the escalator is not really suitable for walking. I said, "What about a disabled person? How would they get down?" They replied, "Oh, we have no way they can get down." In the newer terminals, improvements have been made. But the difference between that and the new Waterloo station where there is splendid wheelchair access shows how progress is being made in terms of improvements.
I have almost run out of time, but I must comment on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I am sorry that he is not here to hear me. He congratulated

733
the Labour Government on everything they had done. I cannot let him get away with that, because, after all, the Act about which we are talking went through under a Conservative government. We have just been told how they allowed it to come back again. It was stated earlier that it started under the Labour government, then came the election of the Heath government and it was carried on by the Conservative government. I see noble Lords looking at me and wondering—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I believe that I was the person who spoke about the matter. Pretty much all the work happened under the Labour government, but against the wishes of the Labour Minister responsible. The Bill had almost completed its progress through Parliament when the election was suddenly called and it was agreed that it would be reintroduced, if necessary. All the work was done when a Labour government were in power.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understood that. It is the point I am making. The Act was actually passed under a Conservative government. I shall read my noble friend's remarks, because I have never heard before what he said. Because the debate is time limited, I cannot spend longer on the subject.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, we agreed to the Bill going through.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I said, we shall not go into that.
More recently, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed. That was certainly under a Conservative government. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, congratulated his Government at the beginning of his speech but then attacked them, saying that they too were not right. I quote him when I say, "One way or the other, the Government's wrong." It is not a question of government. It is a question of people and how much there is to be done. The postcode matter described by the noble Lord is a matter of concern. I asked a Question in the House about the position when postcode prescribing was done away with. How would it be ensured that those who were already benefiting, for example, from beta interferon for multiple sclerosis, would not be disadvantaged? I am sorry to say that the Minister did not provide any satisfactory Answer at all and gave no assurance that at least the few people who are benefiting at present would not be disadvantaged.
There is a great opportunity for respite care, which is a real essential. I have run out of time, but I have seen cottage hospitals being converted for respite care. That is marvellous.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, it is a humbling experience to speak this afternoon when the House is hearing from so many noble Lords whose efforts for, with and as disabled people have achieved so much. I thank the
734
noble Lord, Lord Rix, for the opportunity. We have just touched on the history of the Bill, which I was discussing with my noble friend Lord Morris only yesterday. He reminded me that it was an example— some noble Lords will believe it an example only too rare—of a case where the press did signal good in our national life.
Although it was welcomed on all sides in both Houses, the Bill was threatened when Harold Wilson called the early election, as we have heard. It was at that moment that Harold Evans, the then editor of the Sunday Times, penned a brilliant leader, which said that of all the government's legislative programme, that Bill deserved to survive. As a direct result of his pleadings the party leaders agreed to let it through under the special procedure that applies at election times and through it went, on the very last possible day before the election.
As we celebrate the Act, I want to ponder on the paradox that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to in his speech. Why has an Act that appeared to be such a signal advance at the time, nevertheless today left us in a situation where many people with disabilities are frustrated at the level of provision for them?
In relation to major social advances that situation is not totally unusual. When Aneurin Bevan founded the health service he honestly believed that it would work itself out of business. When those on the waiting lists had been treated, he assumed that there would no longer be a need for a health service on the same scale and that the Government's budget would fall. The House does not need me to tell it that matters have not worked out that way.
As with all social changes, this is a Sisyphean labour, like trying to push a boulder up a hill, but the hill goes on and on and it is difficult to avoid the boulder falling back down. Recognising social rights adds to the demand for rights; reacting to need flushes out need; and responding to demand creates demand. Arguably the great triumph of the original Act was that it recognised disability and the needs of disabled people. The Act removed them from their hole in the corner, where they had been hidden away, and we row know how much has to be done to put them at the centre of our social provision.
On the subject of resources, in this debate we have heard of many such problems, including those arising from the Gloucester judgment and means testing. I do not want to comment directly on either on those matters. However, resources will always be scarce and priorities have to be struck.
Recently I was a member of the Royal Commission on the Long-Term Care of the Elderly, a response to which is due from the Government in July. A terrible dilemma arose because of the difficulties and the injustices experienced by people. People were means tested for the care that they needed but that care was inadequate and more resources were needed. The most disabled elderly people living at home received precisely four hours care a week. I shall not enter into the debate about the majority and the minority in the commission, but members of the commission felt

735
differently about that. Those dilemmas will exist as long as we live in a world of finite resources—and on this planet resources will always be finite. Those matters will have to be followed up and we should not insult those who hold different views as to whether the priority is better services or getting rid of means testing. Decisions of priority have to be made.
Returning to the paradox, the key is not just that things come out from the corners, but that when one considers basic needs and deals with them, other urgent and important needs emerge from behind them. One example of that is an area of which I know a little as my wife specialises in it. That is disabled people and sex. Incidentally, that was the subject—again I praise the press—of a most sensitive article in the Saturday magazine of The Times last week.
Thirty years ago I do not suppose it occurred to most people that disabled people had sexual needs. The Minister reminded me yesterday that in 1971, in Oxford, SPOD (Sexual Problems of the Disabled) was created. Even now such appreciation is advancing only slowly.
My wife's special interest is in sex education for people with learning difficulties. If we consider the matter for a minute, we can understand the importance of this subject. It is of vital importance that people with learning difficulties should know how to protect themselves. That protection may be against unwanted pregnancy and sexual disease in consensual relationships; but, more darkly, that protection may be against the tiny minority of carers who seek to abuse those who rely on their help. After the scandals of recent years we have become much more aware than we would like to be of such problems. More cheerfully, it may be that we simply want to enhance the lives of people with learning difficulties so that they can enjoy the same sexual choices as the rest of us.
Perhaps it is not easy to sustain such work because of an embarrassment factor. My wife was based in a wonderful project in Southwark, called People to People, but that has just had to close due to lack of funds. That is dreadfully sad.
Such areas of unmet demand will always crop up. They will crop up because the needs of disabled people are great and because the resources that society devotes to them tend to be less than we would want ideally. The resources may be less than ideal, but they are far more than if the original Act had not been passed 30 years ago, thanks to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Morris and other noble Lords who have been mentioned in the debate. Public consciousness of and sympathy for the needs of disabled people is now out in the open. Disabled people and all of us owe a great debt to those who have made that possible.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I add my voice to those noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for facilitating this debate on such a special day and to the other noble Lords who have worked so hard over the years to bring us to the present situation.
736
I want to refer to someone whom I know well, a relative who is a little older than I am, and to talk about the change in attitudes that has affected him so dramatically. At the age of five he was diagnosed as having a tubercular hip. He was sent to a children's hospital outside London where he spent two years on his back without being able to move. His leg was stretched. He was given no special equipment with which to eat. He had a teacher about one day in every 10. He had visits from his parents once a month—the only time that they were allowed to visit him. When he left the hospital he was sent—as others were routinely sent—to a segregated school peopled only with children in a similar condition to himself; children who had either severe physical difficulties or severe learning difficulties.
Since then we have come a long way. Attitudes have changed and there has been legal change and service development. I suppose I have spent most of my adult life trying to speed up the process of change so I am particularly pleased to be taking part in this debate.
The success of the Act and the difference in the quality of life that it has brought to many people cannot be over-emphasised. However, I believe that there are still problems to be faced—problems that arise partly from the lack of adequate resources, largely based on mistaken assumptions. We never seem to get right what we take for granted once we know a little more. I too have undertaken a lot of work with Sir Roy Griffiths, who became president of my organisation. With the best will in the world, everybody believed that more community care existed than was in fact the case, so the planning was not adequate.
Over the years we have also suffered from a lack of clarity between the powers and the duties of local authorities. Many of the problems encountered by particular groups of people with disabilities or by the chronically sick or disabled are because of that ability to shift from a duty to a power, and therefore the people are pushed from one set of circumstances to another. We must remember that because of that there is quite a lot of discrimination among the one-third of disabled people who are elderly. Somehow they receive less in the way of consultation, involvement and advocacy. The assumption seems to persist that they have fewer rights.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out that the age at which one becomes disabled is important. Everybody should be advised that they have to become disabled by the time they reach 64 or their whole entitlement changes. We had an interesting debate last week on access to equipment and the difficulties experienced by many people in that regard. Setbacks have occurred due to a lack of clarity; for example, as in the Gloucester judgment, which was referred to so movingly today. That has led to more rationing and discrimination on the grounds of age.
The need for help in taking a bath is important. But for elderly people, the need to have one's home kept clean and the windows shining is perhaps more

737
important for their dignity and pride than other sorts of service provision that may be given priority by those with different points of view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned also the effects that may be felt when the Human Rights Act comes into play. It may challenge the present lack of clarity in the system and I look forward to it helping many chronically sick and disabled people. Article 3 states that no one will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, and everyone has the right, under Article 8, to respect for their private and family life, their home as well as their correspondence. Article 14 relates to the right to non-discrimination in the application of the other convention rights, which will have a big impact on this country.
I am pleased that the Government will be consulting on fair access to care services. One of the reasons discrimination continues is because of the lack of consistency in eligibility criteria for community care services. Consistency in the assessment of everyone throughout the country rather than the postal code ballot, and recognition of the links between physical and mental illness are vital. Sometimes the links are obvious, but sometimes they are not and we should not try to lump people together as a block.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, discussed long-term care. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in relation to intermediate care. But I add a word of caution. It is a good step. We have talked for years about the need for convalescence. But intermediate care hospitals may be used to deprive older people of access to high level specialist medical care. If they are returned to cottage hospitals, then we may be perpetuating the discrimination. We must be careful that that does not happen, and that rehabilitation is included in the care plan of everyone who is admitted to those hospitals.
Finally, as so many noble Lords have said, the Government must recognise the link in the Act we are celebrating today with the need for long-term care both at home and in care settings. It requires adequate resources or, again, the unintended consequences of benevolent legislation may be negative.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, speaking as the oldest Member who attends the House, it is a special pleasure to follow such a splendid champion of the elderly as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I shall let her into a secret, though she probably does not need me to tell her this. The problem is that, as we get older, we decline in energy but become wiser; everyone notices our decline in energy but nobody notices that we become wiser. I am sure the noble Baroness will do all she can to put that right.
I rise with a great sense of humility. We dwell on so much suffering and on the devoted labours of the many who try to relieve suffering. And we do it in the presence of those who themselves have suffered; those who have risen above their suffering and done so much to help others. Naturally, I think first of the noble Baronesses,Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de
738
Knayth, both of whom made maiden speeches 30 years ago when this Bill came before the House. If anyone asked me, "What is the House of Lords like nowadays?", I would say, "It is the kind of place where, when one had to vote for one of 200 independent Peers, it was a lady in a wheelchair who turned out to be the champion, the top one". If the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, had been in the competition, I do not know who would have won. That is the kind of place the House of Lords is today.
Then there is my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. I pay tribute to him and his gadget which sits in front of him. Someone must have paid for it, and did so because they respect him so highly. That is a wonderful tribute. I am sure no one would pay for me to have a gadget!
There are others; the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; I am glad that he is now a kind of relative of mine. He has had to put up with a good deal. He has used two sticks for around 50 years That is heroism too in my eyes. I hesitate to say this; I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, wishes to be put in the category of sufferers. But I know that he has had troubles and I am glad that he has found time to come here. We do not see him often enough in this House; that is my message to him.
When I find myself before St Peter in the near future, he may say to me, "Did you do any good down there?" I shall be able to murmur a little bit about the honours I have received. And he will say, "I do not want to know about that. I want to know, did you do any good?" I shall be able to say, "I played a small part in helping to carry the A1f Morris Bill through the House of Lords 30 years ago". He will probably say, "OK, you can take a day off purgatory for that".
But coming now to the present question, I am glad that it was the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who opened this debate. When I introduced this Bill 30 years ago, I was not sure the extent to which mental handicap was covered and raised that question in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has given the answer: of course it is covered and no one has done as much, or ever will, for the mentally handicapped as the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Of course we are all aware of that. I cannot help having one other thought, though it may be a little frivolous. People sometimes say no actor has ever succeeded in politics. Some may say, "What about Reagan?"; I say, "What about Lord Rix?" It shows how unwise it is to make generalisations.
At any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has done this great work for the mentally handicapped and we come to this Bill. Here I am in a slightly different position from that I was in 30 years ago. I am so sorry that my old and dear friend Lady Serota cannot be here this afternoon. She took part in that debate all those years ago, and said, "In the end, we all become geriatric". That is true. Some of the younger Members on the Front Bench will find eventually that they become old and groggy; that is the way it goes. When I opened this debate 30 years ago I was a fine, upstanding young fellow of about 64. Now I walk with a stick—I am always losing it I am afraid—am partially sighted and

739
registered as blind. But that is the way life goes. Theoretically we all come to it eventually. Perhaps that makes us more aware of, and gives us a sense of sharing the sufferings of the disabled.
I put the obvious questions but I believe that they are being answered as the debate progresses. Thirty years ago I said that for the first time we were helping the disabled to be, and to feel, second-class citizens no longer. For the first time we ensured in administrative terms that there were not nine different divisions but one big division for the whole thing. The measure constitutes a fundamental human Bill of Rights.
Until today I did not realise the problems that my noble friend Lord Morris had experienced with my dear old friend Dick Crossman. Dick was the most brilliant man of my time at New College. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who was his main rival in those days, might contradict that. Dick Crossman was brilliant but he often got things wrong. In his diaries he referred to me as a farcical figure when I was a Cabinet colleague. Dick did not always get things right! However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, knew how to cope with him. The Act was a tremendous triumph.
I shall listen to what everyone has to say but I shall listen for all time—including in the next world—to what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has to say. I pay tribute to the achievement of Alf Morris. He was backed up by many others, but in the last resort it was his achievement.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Snowdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for this opportunity for me to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on his pioneering legislation, which paved the way for so many innovations and changes over the past 30 years. He was, of course, the first Minister in the world to look after the physical and social problems that faced disabled people— problems that were often totally unnecessary.
I must admit that I used to believe that legislation was not necessary, thinking rather that everything could be achieved by education and persuasion. I was quite wrong; there had to be legislation. We certainly continue to need it today to secure the great progress that has been made in recent years. This is perhaps best summarised in the words of Martin Luther King:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrict the heartless".
As I mentioned in my maiden speech in your Lordships' House some 26 years ago, the barriers to access and acceptance are frequently needless. We have come a long way in those 30 years, and so we should have. A great deal of that is thanks to the enlightened leadership, encouragement and enthusiasm on both sides of your Lordships' House.
When I was the President for England of the International Year for Disabled People in 1981 I emphasised that this was,
740
"a celebration of a beginning not an end".
Sadly, some of my more recent experiences illustrate that that end is still a long way off.
Only the other day there was the damning Audit Commission report which showed how far we still have to go. It specifically highlighted the poor quality and design of equipment for disabled people, which is outdated, uncomfortable and unusable. This is how the Audit Commission described services which cost the NHS and local government some £400 million a year.
The report also criticised long waiting lists, ill-fitting artificial limbs—which are so frequently needed for the victims of landmines or war or road accidents— inefficient hearing aids that end up in the bottom drawer and Heath Robinson-like wheelchairs. It stated that 80 per cent of community disability equipment was lost as proper records were not even kept. Even if one is not concerned with the importance of good design, we must surely be concerned with this horrific waste of money. The report is a real shocker; it made the inside pages of some of the national press. However, as a national disgrace it should have been front page headline news.
I turn from the Audit Commission to what was British Rail. Fifteen years ago I objected in the strongest possible terms to disabled passengers being shoved into the unheated luggage van with no facilities, not even a lavatory. Yesterday I telephoned Connex South Central's Disabled Persons Travel Department to find out how things had progressed since it took over the business. I had to endure 10 minutes of recorded Vivaldi and taped directions. Eventually I was told by a real live voice that the department was too busy to discuss disabled people's travel problems.
If we conducted the travel arrangements of our livestock in this way there would rightly be a national outcry. First-class citizens appear to matter rather less in certain mindless boardrooms. Let us hope that there will be serious improvement without further delay. I find these day-to-day uncaring barriers most disagreeable and totally unacceptable.
For example, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, recently inquired about the accessibility of the cinema at Marble Arch to be informed that while it was fully accessible a wheelchair user still constituted a hazard and could not be accommodated as that would break the fire regulations. Cinemas throughout the country still have an extremely poor record on access compared with theatres, for example.
I was also appalled to read that some minicabs in London charge as much as 60 per cent more for carrying guide dogs with their owners. This clear discrimination needs to be eradicated forthwith. It was the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as Minister for Disabled People in another place, who won the battle to get both guide dogs and wheelchairs into the Chelsea Flower Show, where they had previously been banned. The excuse was that it was too crowded and the dogs might get trodden on. However, that is for the visitors to decide, not the organisers. Disabled people must have

741
the right to choose to go where they want, when they want, how they want, not as a favour or an exception but as of right.
The setting up of the Disability Rights Commission announced to the media this morning will, I hope improve many of the injustices that still exist and stop the powers that be from making excuses to the detriment of disabled people.
Today we are here to applaud the many achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who I know would be the first to agree that there is still a long way to go to reach our goals of total integration, equal opportunities, equal rights and for society to applaud the abilities and achievements of disabled people.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that the 1970 Act is the first to mention dyslexics and acute dyslexics. I suspect that without that provision it would have been virtually impossible for me, an acute dyslexic, to receive an education under the state system.
I have made many speeches on this subject. I have come to the conclusion that it is an advantage to be dyslexic in your Lordships' House as I do not like reading out speeches! But, enough of that.
All the speeches that we have heard so far have had the same recurrent theme—the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, summed that up succinctly—namely, that disabled people must be regarded as individuals who have a right to every facility that is available in our society. They have a right to sex lives; to social lives; to be able to travel to work; to choose where they eat; to choose the way in which they organise their lives. Where they are capable of so doing with assistance, it should be made possible for them to do so. Of course, arbitrary decisions may have to be made and occasionally that may not be possible, but, by and large, disabled people must be given the choice. They must be given assistance to achieve this, so that they do not become a category but remain individuals.
Whenever we run into the problem of "What do we do with these people?", once we start to remember that they are individuals the answer occurs to us very readily. If we remember that, what we are doing here becomes obvious. But most of the time we do not remember that; many of us have to remind ourselves that every single group is made up of individuals. Once we take that on board—whether it be in terms of disability, race discrimination or sex discrimination— the path forward, the ultimate goal, is clearly seen.
But the path to that goal changes over time. The argument about resources has been carefully rehearsed and the Gloucester judgment weighs heavily in the background. It basically states that, yes, people can receive help, but resources play a factor in deciding what help and when. I shall not go into the exact words—I cannot remember them—but that is the essence of it. This means that people should receive social care within their own homes, but under certain criteria it can be decided what that care should or
742
should not be. It varies—the definition is rather confusing—but basically resources curtail the amount of help given.
I doubt whether such a system ultimately makes any great difference to the amount of money saved as the health service often ends up holding the baby for what goes wrong. Often the right kind of social service help and assistance is not given. We have heard, for instance, that the correct mattresses to relieve pressure sores are often not provided, and carers are not available to turn people in bed to prevent pressure sores developing, with the result that people have to be treated for pressure sores, a damaging skin condition which can require long-term and expensive help. If we do not turn things around and get properly organised, we shall ultimately end up increasing costs. We must always look at what is going on.
The independent living fund and the fact that it is means tested was mentioned. It will come as no surprise to hear from a Member of these Benches that we think that means testing benefits is usually counter-productive in terms of social help. One has to go through a bureaucratic process and therefore, on the margins, that will probably waste money—through reassessments and so on—and incur greater costs. The bureaucratic system does not help.
As I said, we are talking about a process of ensuring that people can take part in life on an individual basis. There is no point in going on at great length because there have been many good speeches on this subject. Indeed, the speech of my noble friend Lady Barker made me look to my laurels and to wonder whether I will still be leading on this subject in the near future.
Baroness Barker: You will.
Lord Addington: My noble friend tells me that I will. Evidently she has her eyes set on greater prizes.
We have to bear in mind that disabled people are individuals. If we do not, we shall fail them. The struggle with Government seems universal. What the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said about dealing with departments rings true for every single Minister and for every single person applying pressure on Ministers. It is true of the Treasury and it is true of those who think that their slice of the Treasury cake should be protected. It will always exist. Unless we in this House who have an interest in this subject are prepared to apply consistent pressure, we shall lose.
On certain occasions we get diverted and pushed sideways—it happens all the time. We even had a brief discussion about which government should lake certain amounts of credit. I can safely say that all governments deserve credit and that all governments deserve blame. None go as far as they should; none go as far as they promised in opposition. But we can still apply pressure to them. The Conservative Party can take credit for making sure that the 1970 Bill got on to the statute book; the Conservative government that brought in the DDA can take credit for that; but they can also take a considerable degree of blame for blocking the Private Member's Bill. The jury is still out

743
on the present Government, but I congratulate them on having the commission up and running now. That there was only a council was one of the major drawbacks of the DDA. Hopefully the commission will lead to further steps forward in this area.
But unless we continually push the Government, unless we continually remember that we are talking about individuals and their rights, unless we ensure that we do not get ourselves pushed into dark corners, we shall not continue to make progress. We shall end up returning to this subject more and more often and having debates like this. Ultimately we want to be able to stop looking back and saying what we have done; we want to be able to say that that subject is over and done and finished. When we have done that, we shall all be much happier.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on initiating this important debate and on attracting so many of the heroes of the 1970 Act to speak today. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner, who pointed out how hard the noble Lord has fought for the disabled in this House.
I happily join other noble Lords, from all Benches, in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which was a historic landmark in the progress of disabled people towards taking their full place in society. I pay tribute to the architect of the Act, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. I am proud that my uncle, the then Member for Newbury, worked closely with him throughout the passage of the Bill and was one of the original signatories of the Bill.
I also salute my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who, as Secretary of State for Scotland, enabled the achievements of the Act of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to be extended to Scotland. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who played a key role during the passage of the Bill—indeed, he wrote movingly in his book Acts of Defiance of how work on the Bill helped to restore his confidence after losing his hearing; to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who piloted the Bill through this House; and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth, who made their maiden speeches and both introduced important clauses and amendments. Since then they have worked tirelessly and successfully in this House on behalf of the disabled.
The Act was groundbreaking in its time and served as a model for legislation in many other countries. It was the first legislation anywhere in the world to deal with disabled people's access to buildings. Last year I had personal experience of disability. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that access must still be improved.
Access, of course, goes hand in hand with mobility. The Orange Badge scheme introduced under Section 21 of the Act was of immediate and enormous benefit. However, some local authorities still make only a limited number of parking spaces available to Orange
744
Badge holders. That, added to constant abuse, causes endless problems for the disabled and their carers. I very much hope that pressure can be put on inflexible local authorities in this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, mentioned problems of enforcement. I support entirely what she said.
Under the Act, autism and dyslexia entered into statute for the first time. As the father of a daughter with autism and two others with dyslexia, I am eternally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who introduced Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. I am also enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for what he has done for those with learning difficulties.
Thirty years on from the passing of the Act, our task is to address what is the unfinished agenda of unmet need among disabled people. Several noble Lords have mentioned the Gloucestershire case. In essence, the Law Lords' decision has decimated the care assessment and services part of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Thirty years on, many local authorities are ignoring their responsibilities under the Act.
The impact on service provision has been catastrophic. Several noble Lords have mentioned the Needs Must survey. Its findings shocked me; 90 per cent reported a reduction or total cut in help with housework; 72 per cent in help with bathing; 70 per cent in help using the toilet; 79 per cent in help dressing; and 89 per cent in help with preparation or consumption of meals. Those are shocking figures. Statements such as the following are found throughout the report:
"All care was withdrawn all 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 hours were cut by two thirds without letting me know. I wouldn't go through that again. I would take an overdose rather than put up with this".
We have a crisis in community care that the Government must address. Last Friday's debate on the Deafblind Person's Bill was proof in point of the crisis, when the most disadvantaged in our society are being ignored and neglected. Will the Government therefore consider a debate, in government time, on community care in crisis?
One of the main problems facing the disabled and elderly is accessing equipment and assistance. Contrary to Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which places a duty on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide for the disabled and ensure they are informed, the Disabled Living Foundation reports that a disturbing number of people do not know who to approach. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the Audit Commission report, Fully Equipped, published last month. It discovered that standards of disability equipment services are unacceptably low in some parts of the country and that patterns of service provision lead to inequality and inefficiency. Would the Government consider a national advertising

745
campaign, co-ordinated by the Department of Health, to inform people how to access equipment and assistance?
The Audit Commission recommends that the Department of Health should raise the profile of disability equipment services through the National Priorities Guidance, and specific reference should be included in the forthcoming National Service Framework for Older People. Can the Minister confirm that his department will give this matter serious consideration?
This has been a fascinating debate. We have a duty to safeguard the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act against erosion and evasion by those who would dilute or deny services they are under a duty to provide. I very much hope that the Government will be scrupulous in monitoring progress in implementing the 1970 Act and the legislation on disabled people that followed so that disabled people can enjoy equal citizenship.
5.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, this has been a most moving debate and I consider it a great honour to have the responsibility of winding up on behalf of the Government. Like other noble Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose track record over so many years speaks for itself and who, I know to my cost, has been so successful in wringing out concessions from government during the passage of Bills.
It is a particular pleasure that so many noble Lords who took part in those momentous events of 30 years ago are able to debate this Motion in your Lordships' House today. I am very happy to associate myself with the word "hero" used by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. Like other noble Lords, I want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris, who was so instrumental in achieving the successful passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which, I am reliably informed, though I am open to correction, was passed on the day the Parliament was dissolved in 1970. My noble friend has been a consistent and powerful champion over so many years for the rights of disabled people. It is right that we all acknowledge what he achieved against so many odds. It is also a particular pleasure for me that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke in the debate and reminded us of his own substantial role in taking the Bill through your Lordships' House, a Bill he described as a fundamental Bill of Rights for disabled people.
It is indeed a unique occasion for the sponsors of that Bill in both Houses to be in your Lordships' House, as is my noble friend Lord Ashley, who was a leading supporter of the Bill. He himself has been such a doughty fighter over many years.
It is invidious to single out names because every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate has brought a wealth of knowledge, experience and commitment to the cause of disabled people. But I would just express my delight that the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de
746
Knayth and Lady Masham, have spoken, as 30 years ago they made their maiden speeches in your Lordships' House on the Bill. My understanding is that during the passage of the Bill both noble Baronesses were successful in making changes to it. It certainly shows that some things do not change in your Lordships' House.
There can be no doubt that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 was, as the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, put it, an extraordinarily significant milestone in the history of welfare legislation. Section 2 in particular represented a major step forward in the provision of services to disabled people by local authorities. Section 2, for the first time, gave local authorities specific duties towards disabled people. It required local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of a range of services for disabled people provided they were satisfied that it was necessary in order to meet that person's assessed needs. As noble Lords will know, the services to be provided included: practical assistance in the home; the provision of recreational facilities; assistance in arranging adaptations to the home; holidays; meals; and the provision of a telephone and any special equipment needed to enable the disabled person to use it.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was undoubtedly a major step forward for disabled people. But it was more than that. As the excellent RADAR publication, Be It Enacted, pointed out on the 25th anniversary of the passing of the Act, before 1970 disabled people were rarely allowed to contribute to society. For the most part, they were closely controlled, looked after in institutions or hidden within the protection of family homes.
"In the whole field of social policy",
wrote the authors of As of Right in 1985,
"there was no disadvantaged group so utterly neglected".
So the 1970 Act was a watershed—as my noble friend Lord Morris said during the Second Reading of the legislation in another place—increasing the welfare, improving the status and enhancing the dignity of chronically sick and disabled people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, the Act was a prelude to other measures to ensure that disabled people should be able to live as normal lives as possible, in their own homes wherever possible, no matter what their care needs or their disabilities might be. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the care and support given to those people needs to enhance their independence, not take it away.
That is certainly the aim of the Government as we take forward work to support disabled people. Since 1997 we have taken a number of significant steps. The Care Standards Bill, which recently completed its passage through this House, will introduce major regulatory reforms to improve the protection of vulnerable adults and children. The national charter, Better Care, Higher Standards, sets out clearly the support that users and carers can expect from housing and social services. The Fair Access to Care Services

747
initiative aims to provide a more consistent approach across the country to eligibility for services. That point was raised by a number of noble Lords.
We have also extended direct payments to people aged 65 and over. There is also provision to extend them to disabled 16 and 17 year-olds and parent carers of disabled children in the Carers and Disabled Children Bill. We have given specific funding, amounting to £750 million, to support preventative and rehabilitative services to help people to continue to live in their own homes. We have taken forward a major programme to ensure that carers receive the support that they need to carry out their caring responsibilities.
I recognise and understand some of the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords. There is no doubt that we need to do more to tackle problems in services for disabled people, to improve quality and reduce delays. In that context, I think it right to refer to the Gloucestershire judgment.
Let me say right away that I understand the concerns that have been expressed by many speakers in the debate. The Government do not believe that the Gloucestershire judgment should have led to changes in the provision of social services. The House of Lords judgment confirmed what had long been the Department of Health's understanding of the law.
The department did, however, after the judgment remind authorities of their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The circular that was issued in November 1997 made clear that the judgment does not give authorities a licence to take arbitrary decisions on the basis of resources alone. It also emphasises that the judgment does not mean that authorities are not under any duty towards disabled people. Once an authority has decided that it is necessary in order to meet the needs of a disabled person for it to arrange a service listed in Section 2 of the Act, it is under a duty to do so. Where individuals consider that their authority is not satisfying these requirements, it is open to them to make a complaint through the social services complaints procedure.
Having said that, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, when he quoted the Needs Must campaign. I want to assure noble Lords that the Government were very concerned by the findings of the campaign in the recently published Out of services report. The report undoubtedly highlights problems in a number of areas, including delays in carrying out assessments, poor quality services and excessive waiting times for adaptations. I believe that the coalition of voluntary organisations which make up Needs Must are to be commended on bringing these very important issues to our attention. I assure noble Lords that the Government will give the most serious consideration to the report's findings.
Inevitably, reference to the Gloucestershire judgment leads to the question of resource availability. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the matter in an extraordinarily penetrating speech. My noble friend Lord Lipsey talked about resource
748
dilemmas faced by local authorities; the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, also made some valid points on the matter.
The Government make the funding of social services a priority. That is clear in the Comprehensive Spending Review which we undertook two years ago and for which the settlement was announced in July 1998. For the first time we guaranteed that the funds available nationally would increase over the following three years, so that local councils could plan ahead knowing what resources would be available. In the three years covered by the spending review, social services will receive an additional £2.8 billion, which is an average of more than 3 per cent above inflation each year.
It is one thing to have the resources; it is quite another to ensure that they are spent wisely. That brings me back to the criticisms made by noble Lords of the variable performance of local authorities. The Government are strongly committed to a more active approach to assessing the performance and monitoring the progress of local authorities in delivering social services. The new performance assessment system that we have developed will produce comprehensive in-year and end-year information on the delivery of services. That will allow concerns about performance to be identified quickly. Alongside a more powerful Social Services Inspectorate and our ability to take action where local authorities are not performing well, it offers a great deal of hope for the future.
Our approach is beginning to bear fruit. Last week, my honourable friend Mr John Hutton announced that five of the 16 poorly performing councils with social services authorities have improved enough to be removed from the list of those subject to special measures.
In talking about resources, one has to come to the issue of charges. In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me a number of questions about charges. It is for each local authority to decide whether to make charges for non-residential services and, if so, how much to charge. The Government's White Paper, Modernising Social Services, recognised that the current scale of variation in discretionary charging is unacceptable. We are considering the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission and we shall consider the survey of local authority charging that is being undertaken by the Audit Commission and the report that it is due to publish shortly. I assure noble Lords that our aim is to move, as far as possible, towards greater consistency and fairness in charging. Fairness is a philosophy that must also underpin access to care, as a number of noble Lords pointed out.
We have a Fair Access to Care initiative. We are putting out guidance for consultation in May 2000. The intention is to review all people with care plans at the start of April 2002, completing that project by April 2003. The aim is to ensure that adults with similar social care needs living in similar circumstances will receive services designed to achieve broadly similar outcomes.

749
It would not be right for me to let this moment pass without referring, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, did, to the launch today of the Disability Rights Commission, which will come into operation on 25th April—30 years late perhaps for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
There is no doubt that the commission will play a key role in achieving our manifesto commitment to establish enforceable civil rights for disabled people. The commission will provide much-needed and long-awaited services for disabled people. It will give them advice and information and support them in pursuing individual cases, and it will play a key role in challenging the outdated and unnecessary attitudes, to which a number of noble Lords have, quite rightly, drawn attention, that still exist in society and among train operating companies and other private and public service providers. Where necessary the commission will take steps to enforce the law. It will also have an important role to play in supporting business and public bodies to fulfil their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to a number of matters that affected people with learning disabilities. He described in graphic detail the enormous changes that had taken place over the past 30 years in the provision of services to people with learning disabilities. One has only to think back 30 years to the enormous Victorian institutions, in which so many people with learning disabilities were almost incarcerated, to note the profound change that has occurred. People with learning disabilities are a particularly vulnerable group. The report Facing the Facts published in November last year showed that there was a wide variation in the quantity and quality of services provided to that group. Just before Christmas we started work on the development of a new learning disability strategy. I note the helpful comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I shall ensure that they are considered as we take forward the work on the strategy.
I should like to turn to a number of points raised by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the important question of advocacy. I assure the noble Lord that we encourage local authorities to use and support local advocacy schemes, or to set up their own, to meet particular needs. We are fully committed to working with the Disability Rights Commission on the issues identified by the Disability Rights Task Force. We are also looking at advocacy for people with learning disabilities as part of the learning disability strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, also asked about short-term breaks. I fully appreciate just how valuable short breaks can be for disabled people and their carers. To that end, we have introduced a new special grant of £140 million over three years to promote flexible breaks for carers.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made some important points about the need to ensure that users and carers are fully brought into the picture when we develop new services, particularly at local level—there must also be emphasis at national level—to ensure that those who
750
manage and run services are fully acquainted with the expert views that users and carers can bring to the process. I agree with my noble friend that sometimes there is a gap between rhetoric and action, and we must redouble our efforts to deal with that. I believe that that message is as relevant to the National Health Service as it is to local government and other statutory agencies.
A number of important points were raised about the elderly. The National Service Framework for Older People which we shall develop will look closely at some of the issues that have been raised in relation to healthcare services for older people. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that greater investment in money and people in chiropody services may avoid the necessity for older people to go into hospital to undergo much more severe interventions in future.
I shall resist the temptation to discuss with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, the question of NHS appointments. We have debated that matter many times in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to access to buildings. We should acknowledge progress; much has been achieved. However, a good deal more needs to be done, as the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, rightly reminded us. In response to the noble Earl's points about access to buildings and taxis, those matters will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, Part III of which requires agencies to make reasonable adjustments to enable people to access services. The remaining part of the Act, which is to be implemented by 2004, introduces new requirements on access to buildings.
I believe that it was only three weeks ago that noble Lords debated a number of social security and welfare issues. My noble friend Lord Ashley again raised the question of means tests in relation to the Independent Living Fund. I can only repeat what my noble friend said in that debate. The fund has always been designed for those on low income, and that intention is reflected in the fund's trust deed. The maximum amount paid by the extension fund is £625 per week, or over £30,000 a year, tax free. In addition, the Department of Social Security announced in January measures to relax the means test. This allows ILF clients who work to keep 45 per cent of their earnings between £30 and £200 per week. Therefore, the maximum earnings disregard has been increased more than three times from £30 to £106.50 per week.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Lipsey referred to the outstanding work of Duncan Guthrie in establishing SPOD, which I believe is now described as an association to aid the sexual and personal relationships of people with a disability. When I was a manager at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford I met Mr Guthrie a number of times since he held meetings at the hospital. That work is extraordinarily valuable and is a visible indication of how the passing of the Act in 1970 broke through a number of barriers and enabled people to think afresh of the needs of disabled people in a much more holistic way.

751
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked me to confirm that employment was encouraged but not enforced. The Government's position is that work is the best route out of poverty, including for those with disabilities. Many disabled people would like to work and need support to be able to do so, but we recognise that some cannot. It is a key feature of any civilised society that disabled people have the service and support to enable them to lead good quality lives.
I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, about the Orange Badge scheme. I shall ensure that the DETR is fully acquainted with those comments. The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Greengross, were right to make reference to the Human Rights Act. The Government are undertaking a broad assessment of the likely impact of the Human Rights Act. My department aims to mainstream human rights in health and social care so that they are at the heart of policy, legislation and service delivery.
I refer next to the report of the Audit Commission on disability equipment services, which we debated last week. I assure noble Lords that the Government accept the thrust of the report, which is that disability equipment services need to be improved. We are determined to do better. I echo the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, that it is essential to provide equipment that is of good design and quality.
Time presses. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for giving us this opportunity to reflect on the considerable developments in care for disabled people. As the noble Lord said at the beginning of the debate, we have come a long way since 1970. This debate has allowed us to pay tribute to the remarkable efforts of many noble Lords in your Lordships' House today, along with so many other dedicated people, in ensuring that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act reached the statute book. It was a watershed in this country's approach to disabled people. It laid the foundations on which further progress could be made. It led to a sea change in attitudes towards disabled people.
Much has been accomplished. More remains to be done. I can assure noble Lords that this Government are determined to ensure that disabled people receive reliable and highly effective services and that we shall continue to do all we can to enhance the independence, well-being and rights of disabled people.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I have just received a note from the Table that I must end my speech at 5.53 p.m. I feel privileged to have initiated a debate which has attracted such a high calibre of speakers today. I am most grateful for all the kind words spoken about me. I humbly accept them on behalf of my daughter and so many other people with a learning disability.
We have heard today from some of the most experienced and eminent representatives of disabled and older people, their families and carers, including the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, as the noble
752
Lord, Lord Pakenham, was the chairman of Mencap—then the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children—way back in the late 1950s when I was the chairman of the first ever fund-raising committee of that organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, whose original Act of Parliament inspired this debate, has demonstrated his ongoing concern and sensitivity to issues related to community care support for disabled people, while a number of my noble friends from the Cross Benches, and others—I count them as my friends—from all sides of the House were most generous in their support and unstinting with their expertise in relation to personal services, family carers and disabled people, both elderly and those of younger years.
Other noble Lords highlighted issues raised in the Out of services report. It is an important and timely report which focuses on how our current system of social services measures up to the markers of entitlement established in the CSDP Act. But the Gloucester judgment hangs like an odious miasma over the question of financial resources. I am glad that the Minister gave some positive reaction to that. He kindly sketched ways in which his department seeks to rise to the challenge in particular—in regard to the Gloucester judgment—on the question of charging and advocacy.
Those who work with disabled and older people, their families and carers, will look forward to seeing a palpable improvement in the way the services are delivered on the ground.
Finally, my thanks to all noble Lords for their most valuable contributions. I am certain that if they are noted in the corridors of power they will be responsible for providing not only happy Easters, but happier days and years ahead for at least 20 per cent of the population: those oft-forgotten—although not by us—millions who are disabled, their families and their carers. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Globalisation
5.53 p.m.
Lord Borrierose to call attention to the economic and social effects of globalisation and its impact on fair competition, employment conditions and the environment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted that so many of my noble friends and noble Lords have put down their names to speak in this debate. I especially look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, with his lifetime's experience of communication in all its forms, and broadcasting in particular.
The essence of globalisation is that one can communicate, travel, buy and sell across the whole world as easily, or almost as easily, as one could do previously within one's own narrower local community. What individuals can do with their limited resources, businesses, particularly major

753
corporations and enterprises of all kinds, can do on a large scale. In recent years, rapidly growing technology has eased and simplified visual and verbal communication around the globe and enabled goods and services to be offered to customers across continents.
Those changes, combined with an increasing willingness on the part of most nation states to pull down trade barriers, have enhanced the standards of living and opportunities for choice and employment among large numbers of people in all parts of the world. Because of free trade and the possibilities of rapid transport, people can enjoy edible produce out of season, seek out educational and employment opportunities abroad and benefit from the availability of good value products sold by suppliers who may be based anywhere. Competition on price, quality and service, along with the removal of trade restrictions, help to promote the consumer and economic welfare ideal of best value being offered over the widest possible range of goods and services.
Globalisation is creating consumer benefit on an appropriately global scale. So what is the downside? Certainly globalisation is not all benign. I suppose the most obvious downside is that the ready supply of goods from elsewhere to wherever one happens to be can destroy less productive indigenous industries and the jobs that go with them. The consumer's gain may be the employee's loss. Other downsides arise because global capitalism may pay scant regard to the economic and social interests of third world countries; and there are inadequate international controls to restrain powerful corporations.
For many economic, social and environmental reasons, most developed countries of the world have rightly come to consider that to allow business enterprises within their own boundaries complete freedom to exploit the national economy and its own citizens is unacceptable. Restraints are imposed, for example, to ensure that businesses do not create price-fixing cartels or abuse monopoly power which could destroy the very economic justification of the competitive free enterprise system; namely, the provision of maximum consumer value. Free competition, carried forward with vigour and determination, carries with it the seeds of its own destruction because the takeover of rivals and cartel arrangements between rivals may eliminate competition and the incentives to provide good value.
The governments of most developed states— starting with the United States towards the end of the 19th century, and followed by Japan, the European countries and the European Community as a whole— have each sought through regulation to combat those commercial tendencies towards cartels and monopolistic practices in order to preserve and maintain competition as the anvil on which consumer satisfaction and choice can continue to be forged.
Nowadays, modern nation states and larger politico-economic groupings like the European Community have developed rules to ensure that the excesses (I use a general term) of industrial production
754
do not cause havoc to, for example, the environment. "Make the polluter pay" and other policies are used as a deterrent. As industrialisation and the competitive push for more customers and more markets have developed, citizens of democratic countries with some kind of power over their own governments have pressed successfully for all kinds of excesses to be controlled by government, including the excesses of misleading advertising and exploitation, and disregard to adequate health and safety standards.
More and more states throughout the world have accepted the need to introduce and gradually strengthen legislation and regulation to safeguard the environment, the pay and conditions of workers, and safety standards for employees and for customers of goods and services.
However—and this is where I return to my theme of the downsides of globalisation—whereas free trade covers most of the world like a blanket, regulation providing safeguards against excesses of all kinds for citizens, employees and consumers does not. Whole swathes of the old Soviet Union, Asia and Africa are open in a large degree to the benefits of global free enterprise, but also to ruthless exploitation by global multinational corporations, and there is a dearth in those countries of regulatory restraint.
The safeguards, therefore, that governments in the United States and Western Europe have required for the benefit of their own citizens do not extend to the citizens of those less protected parts of the world. It follows, therefore, that companies based in the United States or Europe, whose relationships with citizens of their own countries are constrained and civilised, may rampage with impunity in the rest of the world, particularly in the so-called third world.
That is not to say, of course, that they necessarily do so. Many are responsible purveyors of goods and services, wherever and to whomever they are providing them. But tobacco companies, for example, which sell their products in countries that do not impose restrictions on sale or require health warnings are unlikely to adopt them voluntarily. Rather, they will seek to make up for the falling sales they now suffer in the West by marketing them with greater effort in the East, particularly targeting children to replace those who die or quit. Baby food producers restrained by various legal requirements in Europe may find fewer restrictions on their marketing in other parts of the world.
Bribery, which companies would be ashamed to indulge in when seeking to win contracts at home, may be engaged in and hypocritically justified abroad.
Companies may replace their Western work force with cheaper sources of labour in Sri Lanka, China or the Philippines, where rules against child labour and sweated adult labour are weak or non-existent. Appeals to the morality or humanity of the companies concerned may well be likely to be less effective than the force of law.
Globalisation should benefit the poor and the weak as well as the rich and the fairly well off. But globalisation, in terms of ease of communication,

755
travel and trade, has not been matched by the globalisation of regulation and restraint. The scenes in Seattle last year and in Washington in the past week or so have arisen because of real concerns felt by people, some of them no doubt eccentric or extreme, who are worried about this sort of thing.
The World Trade Organisation and the IMF have the meritorious and perfectly proper aim of reducing ever further barriers to world trade, but it does not seem to me that their aims are matched by seeking to ensure that legitimate concerns about the environment, health and safety and the exploitation of third world workers and consumers are properly met.
Of course, it is no good expecting—it would be impractical to do so—that developing countries would adhere, without delay, to the environmental and labour standards achieved in the West after long struggle and change over many years. Sudden change cannot be expected. Indeed, developing countries may only be able to become developed countries, may only be able to get on their feet, by taking advantage of the fact that at present their standards in these fields are lower. But the aim should be to combine further moves towards globalisation and free trade, the free movement of goods, labour and capital across national boundaries, with some sort of consensus and convergence across the whole world on the globalisation also of anti-trust measures and of basic minima of labour, social and environmental standards.
Multinational companies, unleashed from the restraints of American and European laws against anti-competitive practices and mergers, are liable to dominate the fledgling economies of developing countries unless their home countries concern themselves with the global, and not just the national, impact of those companies' activities.
I believe that the major countries of the world, which do restrain companies within their own boundaries as to their conduct at home, should also restrain them in the way they behave in other countries. Efforts have been made. I do not have time to give many examples, but I take a good example from the United States—that of dealing with footloose American capital moving to Asian sweatshops to employ unskilled Asian labour for wages below subsistence level. I refer to President Clinton's task force and the code of conduct it agreed in 1997, called, conveniently, "No Sweat", imposing minimum labour standards for all American firms in the clothing industry and applicable wherever in the world they employed labour, wherever in the world they chose to operate.
Free markets and globalisation are positive, life-enhancing concepts, but they need to be complemented by many initiatives of the kind that I have just mentioned. We have national governments, we have supra-national organisations, such as the IMF, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank; we have organisations like the European Community; we have bilateral and multilateral agreements. All should be brought into play to ensure the consensus
756
that I have spoken about and to require multinational companies gradually to seek to apply—throughout the world high labour, safety and environmental standards when they operate in other countries.
The distinguished economist Professor Bhagwati, of Columbia University, sometime economic policy adviser to GATT, the predecessor of the World Trade Organisation, said, referring to multinational companies:
"In Rome, they must do not as Romans do, but as we do. Their example would spread".
I beg to move for Papers.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on introducing this debate, and on his timing of it.
We have memories of the battle of Seattle last year and the demonstrations in Washington very recently, and it is right that we should have an opportunity to address, however briefly, the legitimate concerns expressed about the economic, social, cultural and environmental effects of globalisation. I agree with the noble Lord that some of the expressions are violent. Some are unjustified; some are ideologically motivated. But many of them are expressions of completely legitimate concerns.
"Globalisation" is, I understand, a term that originally acknowledged the achievement of the developers at all levels of means of communication, but it is now increasingly used as shorthand for the world economy.
We look forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his interpretation of the terms of the Motion. We must consider the remit of the international agencies charged with developing the global economy.
My basic viewpoint—I believe that one should set that out in a debate of this kind—is that throughout my political life I have believed in the prime efficacy of free trade as an unrivalled long-term creator of prosperity. But I have also accepted the need, as I believe did Adam Smith, for ameliorating measures which might be necessary in the shorter term.
In broad terms, the 20th century saw a great battle between liberal ideas on the economy and politics and authoritarian ideas, whether disguised as communist, socialist or nationalist, and modifications of each of those. There is no doubt that the liberal ideas eventually triumphed. However, we must also acknowledge that the social and cultural aims of both sides were often highly desirable and that one side influenced the other.
There is now a danger of following a capitalist model on the development of the unprotected areas of the global economy. If we persist with it, we could force on the world generally and on developing countries in particular a version of capitalism which is completely dominated by an unrestrained profit motive with the idea that the sooner we exploit the

757
situation the better. That is highly undesirable and dangerous and it tends to be regarded as the American model.
However, there are other versions of capitalism which, if advanced and pressed with vigour, will carry a great segment of American opinion, which is the most important in this particular political context, in support of it as a more acceptable and efficacious way of achieving long-term ends without inflicting short-term misery, damage and disruption. One such alternative model is surely that of the European Union. Its emphasis is on achieving much greater freedom of trade, gradually removing national barriers and impediments to free economic and social exchange. In the process, it prudently safeguards important political, social, cultural and environmental goals, but modifies their potentially divisive effect.
This lengthy and often controversial approach has been the instrument of one of the greatest success stories of the 20th century. It rivals, in its way, the success of the infinitely less complex but more dramatic achievement of the dominant political, economic and cultural power of the USA. I believe that it presents an altogether more attractive and desirable version for the nations of the world to follow in developing a happy as well as prosperous global society. A prosperous global society is not necessarily a happy one, especially for parts of it. The global society is much more complex and multi-cultural than Europe ever was.
I believe that the World Trade Organisation and the IMF should be authorised by the United Nations to continue its activities, but with a broader remit to consider economic, social, cultural and environmental consequences of its policies and actions. It is not enough, is it, to say that a free trade policy will benefit "a country" in the abstract if the price of that policy is that virtually the whole economy of a country can be taken over by a multi-national; or that there is a shattering of social and cultural life with either a dictatorial leader; or a very narrow class of people eventually benefiting from the so-called prosperity of the country? We have the need to safeguard the communities of the world from such development.
We in the United Kingdom and the European Union should politically challenge what is widely regarded as the American model of free trade; that is, an unfettered global capitalisation model which operates on the basis that there should be no fettering of the urge engendered by the entirely profit-ridden motive of the financial market. It is argued that global well-being will come faster in economic terms, and therefore eventually and by implication in social terms, if there is little or no interference on social, cultural, environmental or even political grounds.
In the advanced countries of the West, we would not stand for that. However, we stand for it in the development of the global economy. Misery, insecurity and the devastation of social and cultural communities in the short term has been accepted as a price worth paying for the eventual benefit of the world, according to this capitalist model. It is a
758
capitalist approach which I cannot accept and which most people in the world, if properly led, would not accept.
I say that as a great believer in the importance of the Atlantic alliance. I was hissed and booed at Liberal Party conferences when I stood up for NATO when it was extremely unpopular in my party. I have many American friends and business contacts and I know that it is feared that there is a closure of eyes to what is happening in the world economy as regards some of the large multinationals. We need to give a lead in this country and in Europe so that a more balanced view emerges. We need to change the rules.
I have a copy of last year's press release of Mike Moore, Director-General of the WTO, in spelling out the priorities of the Seattle conference. He referred to his own organisation as a rules-based institution. We know that it is restricted by some of those rules and we need to ensure that it can be enlarged. Today's debate is important because we shall extract from the Minister an indication of Government thinking on the subject, the initiatives that they are prepared to take and the grounds on which they are prepared to take them.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Birt: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for prompting this important debate on globalisation, for launching it with a most distinguished thoughtful, reasonable and balanced contribution, and for offering me an opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject other than broadcasting. At the same time, perhaps I may express my gratitude to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the warm welcome that they have accorded me over recent weeks. I thank the officers and staff of the House for their friendly guidance and help. This is a most welcoming place.
I shall focus on the impact of globalisation on the UK. For thousands of years, the movement of people, goods and ideas has had a profound social, cultural and economic impact on every single part of the world. Globalisation has been with us since ships set sail. Other technical advances since then, whether the steam engine, air travel, telecommunications and many more, have all quickened the pace of globalisation. The technological change that we are currently experiencing will accelerate it enormously.
Digital technology has many different characteristics. It allows an infinity of information to be conveyed on fibres and wires. It works on demand, enabling the consumer to call up a myriad of services: what you want, when you want it. Incredible processing power enables you to search and to find the needle in a haystack: the exact information that you want. The technology allows interactivity: communication is two-way and equal. Memory power is increasing and whole archives will soon be maintained on a small disc, whether at home or at the desk-top. The technology is increasingly mobile: what you want, on the move, wherever you are. The technology is global; it does not respect national frontiers: what you want from any point oil the globe.

759
I suggest that any one of those characteristics would bring about profound change in this and every other society in the world. Together, they are revolutionary. I believe that the digital revolution may prove to be at least as significant as was the industrial revolution. This revolution will have many consequences, but today I shall mention only two. First, it will accelerate the globalisation of culture. The globalisation of culture is not new. Just think, as you travel around the world, of the ubiquitousness of the baseball-cap and the trainer. However, it will accelerate even more when any kind of programme is accessible from any other point in the world and watched freely by every kind of person, including young people.
Secondly, digital technology will promote economic growth. As we know, the US economy has now been growing very rapidly and very robustly for quite a number of years, and it has surprised most observers. Silicon Valley is probably responsible for half of the incremental growth during that period of the US economy.
These technologies will place intense competitive pressure on every single kind of organisation. Those organisations will need to rethink the services that they provide to the consumer and they will need to rethink how they provide those services. I give one small example. Amazon.com, from a standing start in Seattle, is now, in only a small number of years, the UK's third largest bookseller.
We cannot, Canute-like, seek to hold back the digital tide. The Chinese can and do try to block independent journalism on the Internet, but in the end such actions are technologically futile; they can always be averted by the consumer. The response to those challenges needs to be positive and not protectionist. The best way to counter the globalisation of culture is to continue to support national cultural institutions of all kinds. I believe that, currently in the UK, we find almost all of our national cultural institutions in remarkably healthy condition.
The best way for the UK to deal with intense global competition is to promote national competitiveness. Here, I believe, there is no cause for complacency. Our digital infrastructure is developing reasonably well in the United Kingdom, but on-line take-up is well behind the world's leaders, even if it is ahead of many countries in Europe. ISDN penetration in the UK is low. On-line costs for business are high. There is weak awareness in UK boardrooms of the significance of the Internet and other new technologies, and little evidence of national industrial readiness in many sectors and in many parts of the UK.
Much of the responsibility for that lies with business, but government can help. First, I believe that a new regulatory framework is needed to promote competition and diversity, both in the supply of infrastructure and services. Secondly, government and the public sector can promote more rapid take-up of new technology: by dealing with individual citizens on-line; by providing all public sector services on-line; by
760
insisting on dealing with all government suppliers on-line; and, most importantly, by ensuring that no child leaves school in the UK without advanced computer skills. It is very hard to imagine that in a few years' time any kind of worker will be effective without them or that any kind of individual will be able to get the most out of their life if they are not computer-literate.
We need a conscious national response if the UK is to harness and not to fall victim to those powerful revolutionary and global forces. I look forward to debating that response with your Lordships in the years ahead.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and a privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on his excellent maiden speech. It was forthright and succeeded in laying down the law without being controversial. That is no surprise because the noble Lord has been very active in many fields. He has produced, controlled and directed various things in the media, and his career as director-general of the BBC is something which I am sure we shall all remember. I am sure that the noble Lord believes that now that he has left that behind, he can have a good time here. We welcome him.
It is very apt that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, chose to make his maiden speech on the subject of globalisation. I credit him for the fact that in many hotel rooms where I have arrived, jet-lagged, I have switched on the television to watch BBC World. Had it not been for him, BBC World would not have been there. Therefore, the noble Lord was a globaliser long before many of us, and I believe that we shall definitely enjoy his future contributions in the House.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borrie on introducing this subject. Globalisation seems to be everywhere. I believe that this week I have made a speech on globalisation every day; this is the fourth that I have made on the subject so far. There is so much to say that I shall put down some markers.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, globalisation has been going on for a long time, I believe that its latest phase, which started some time in the 1980s, is most important and significant. As many noble Lords pointed out, current technology is very powerful and, unlike previous phases in which technology speeded things up, we are now at a stage where time and distance are almost annihilated. One can not only buy things instantaneously but one can also direct production across long distances. Communications are such that atrocities in the remotest parts of the world are exposed immediately. You do not have to wait for the cable or the stage coach to arrive. It is yet another form of capitalism. It started at the end of the 20th century. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson pointed out, it is the first form of capitalism where there are no rival models. It causes a lot of frustration.
People do not like to call globalisation by its name, which is capitalism. During the 20th century many people thought that capitalism would not last until the

761
end of the century; many others thought perhaps it would change its spots and become more like socialism, communism or whatever. Even the enemies of communism, like Professor Rostow, thought that the best one could hope for was a convergence between communist and capitalist systems. None of that happened. This is now the only game in town. But profitability, and considerations of profitability, will drive the system around. People are uneasy about that. They are uneasy because there was a similar case of globalisation in the 19th century. It was called an empire then. But there was globalisation with a single currency, the gold standard, and there was the British Navy. There was a globalised world in which, unlike today, there was a lot of labour mobility. We forget that the agitation about asylum-seekers and refugees did not happen in the 19th century. In the 19th century no distinction was made between citizens and refugees. We were all told we could move where we liked.
However, today, quite clearly we have not a single currency but free unregulated movement of capital. We have democracies rather than empires. But the Second World War in particular gave us the idea—I would not call it a delusion—that somehow capitalism was controllable within a single nation state; that somehow we could have a compromise between labour and capital with government acting as a referee, as a kind of boss, and allow people to do what wanted to do. It almost worked for 30 years. The period 1945 to 1975 is actually an exception. The more one looks at it one sees that it is the exception and not the norm. Our modern globalisation wants to get back to that period when there were regulatory standards, when capital was made to behave itself and not go outside the regulations and so on. I think that one very peculiar result, which is very hard for us to accept, is that in today's world it is not possible to set up global structures, even if we want them for the best possible reasons.
It is not possible because the world remains largely unequal, much more unequal than any nation state was within its boundaries. Therefore, bodies like the IMF and the World Bank are dominated by the rich countries. Even the United Nations are dominated by the rich countries. Often developing countries, quite rightly, are suspicious of regulatory structures which could be set up, in which they will not have the sort of say they would like. The question of labour conditions is very sensitive—and I do want to provoke my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Brett to say something about this as it is a controversial question.
I spoke at the International Metal Workers' Federation, where people were divided about the uniformity of labour conditions across the world. These trade unionists are divided about whether labour conditions should be made identical. The reason is—and my noble friend Lord Borrie referred to it—cheap labour and therefore it is capitalism exploiting cheap labour. For the people employed that is probably the best job they can get. They have no other alternative. Some people are working at one dollar a day but that is not a bad wage in many countries. Industrialisation of the third world has been
762
speeded up in the last 25 years. One of the reasons— not the only reason—for it is the bigger movement of capital that has occurred as a result of globalisation.
Official foreign aid did not flow in the amount that was needed. Even now it is about 50 billion dollars. Even today, after the Asian crisis, 200 billion dollars are moving across what we call the third world. That is our central dilemma. The central dilemma is that we would like to create our kind of Keynesian capitalism around the world in nice little chunks. That will not guarantee the growth of those really poor countries— China, India, Malaysia, Singapore and so on.
We ought to create institutions. But we ought to create institutions without impeding the growth of those countries. That will help to create better conditions. That is not easy to do, because we will have to bring into play very substantially—much more than is the case now—the representatives of those countries. In the WTO, for example, the countries of India and China want an extension of WTO to the free-up of trade. The fear of globalisation is much greater now in rich countries because jobs are being displaced. And jobs displaced from here to there is good for them, although it may be bad for us. But we are rich, we can adjust. We should welcome the fact that some of the turbulence, some of the troubles that we complain about, are actually the positive side of globalisation. One should not necessarily want to reverse or halt it just so that we are happy and so that no Rover factories or coal mines are shut. But people need goods. Whatever else we may want to achieve as an objective on health, on culture, on environment, we must not make them feel this is once again the rich countries preventing them from growing because those rich countries have had their cake and they not only want to eat it but go on baking it again and again and have it entirely for themselves. That is the real issue of justice and I hope we can made some progress on that.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has introduced a timely and important debate. In introducing it, he has reminded us of his experience as a guardian of rules of economic activity and the application of that experience to the world at large. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, in his splendid maiden speech, if I may say so, has added the technological dimension with its obvious and far-reaching implications. Both of them make it unnecessary for me to dwell on what we mean by globalisation. I think that that is quite clear, at least for this debate. It is the relation of powerful new forces which transcend all traditional and notably all national boundaries.
I share the view of those who see this as an opening up process; and therefore a process of new hopes and opportunities. It is also right not to be naive about it. It is no accident that important analyses of the economic and social effects of globalisation would have titles like The New Alchemists or Living on Thin Air, the latter by Charles Leadbealer, highly recommended by Mr Blair as "extraordinarily interesting".
How thin the air can be we have just seen when the

763
"new economy" shares crashed first in Wall Street and then around the world. There is a strange ambiguity about some of the preferred words of the new economy like "risk" and "flexibility". Is risk a threat or is it an opportunity? Is flexibility a new virtue or a source of insecurity?
I want to highlight two economic and social effects of globalisation which are directly relevant to policy: one to do with education and the other with work. I do that not as a plea to curb the creative powers of the globalising process but to point to some of the side-effects of that process.
"Education, education, education" seems an appropriate enough maxim for what is often called the knowledge society. The economic and social advantages of higher and further education are well documented. People with A-levels and more not only have significantly higher life-time earnings, twice as high on average and even more for women, but also other advantages: they are more likely to have managerial jobs; they are relatively protected from unemployment; they are much more likely to perceive themselves as in excellent physical health; they are less likely to be victims of accidents or assaults; they report fewer educational problems among their children; they are more likely to vote and to be involved actively with voluntary organisations; they are more committed to gender equality and anti-racist values.
Those are conclusions of a remarkable study conducted at London's Institute of Education. I am referring to a paper by John Brynner and Muriel Egerton which was discussed recently at one of those early morning seminars at No. 11 Downing Street.
The clear conclusion must be that it is desirable to make the benefits of education available to more people. The 40 per cent who now advance to A-levels and beyond must be raised to 50 per cent and, who knows, 60 per cent. But—and this is important—what about the remaining 40 per cent? Let us make no mistake. There will be 40 per cent who do not make it to A-levels and beyond. Indeed, that is more likely to be 50 per cent. They have all the disadvantages: lower incomes, higher unemployment, a worse health status, greater exposure to accidents, less involvement in civic affairs and, not least, more educational problems with their children.
The resulting problem of cumulative disadvantages is not just one of inequality in the sense of stratification. Such inequality exists in all societies. The new problem is that two social worlds emerge: one with all the advantages; the other with all the disadvantages. The two worlds barely meet. They may pursue their varied objectives in walking distance from each other, yet they are rarely in the same place—in the same schools, clubs, pubs or even political meetings.
There is something absolute about the divisions created by "education, education, education" as a response to the challenges of globalisation; something absolute for which no remedy has been found. Some believe that the remedy is work. They believe that full employment unites all in the post-modern societies emerging from globalisation.
764
That is an important subject on which I have commented in earlier debates in your Lordships' House. Some noble Lords may remember that the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who I am delighted to see in her place, reported to us on 27th March on the Lisbon European summit. At that time, I expressed some surprise that the employment rate has become an objective and that leaders had agreed to raise it from its present European average of 61 per cent to nearly 70 per cent within 10 years.
My guess is that it is much more likely to go down to 50 per cent, where it already stands in major European countries. Longer education, increased early retirement and a further increase in portfolio working—part time and intermittent as it is—make the return of the old work society increasingly-unlikely.
That too is an economic and social effect of globalisation. But capital no longer needs much labour to create wealth. At any rate, the old relationship is gone which led Keynes to "save capitalism" by increasing the ability of labour to work, earn and spend.
There is, to be sure, enough work to do, but that is not imperative for the creation of wealth. On the contrary, as recent developments in banking and other services show, the less labour that is employed, the more wealth is created, at least in the macro figures so beloved by this Government and their predecessor.
When I write a book about those issues, I shall call it Capital Without Labour. That is not a matter for parliamentary debate. However, it is a matter for debate when a Government who appreciate the massive changes in our socio-economic environment have, so far, failed to see that those include the world of work. Work is no longer the remedy, either for healing a divided society or for reversing the process of social corrosion.
What is the remedy? I believe that the concepts are there, although so far, no one has put them together properly. I list a handful, each of them a subject for future debates in your Lordships' House: stakeholding—that is the involvement of those whose interest in business is not just based on the stock market; citizenship—that is the active participation in the numerous activities of civil society; community— that is the development of local networks of co-operation; the social economy—that is providing income in new ways from tax credits and basic income guarantees to time banks; social service—that is a contribution of time by all for common purposes and in ways which bring different groups together.
All that can be summarised in one word: "glocalisation". The simultaneous blossoming of global and local activities may appear to be a paradox but can in fact be, and probably should be, an answer to the problems of the new economy.
6.47 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the demonstrations in Washington have prompted a few

765
thoughts on non-governmental organisations and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for providing us with the opportunity for this debate.
NGOs represent a bridge between two groups of people, and that echoes much of what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has said. At one end, there are their supporters in the rich world; at the other, the poorest, who are seen both as friends and as victims, in this case, of global capital and by association, the international financial institutions.
The argument runs that globalisation must be an enemy of the poor since it unites free market forces against labour and against the world's weakest economies. It introduces new rules of trade and investment which are bound to favour the well-established monopolistic trans-national companies over vulnerable third world societies.
I do not dismiss that argument altogether since, having worked with NGOs, I have seen the effects of structural adjustments and random so-called enterprise in Africa, Asia and even as near as Portugal, where you can still find the debris left behind by British mining companies. No one will turn them into a tourist attraction. And there are the more serious invisible scars on the lives of the poor.
I recognise also how necessary the Bretton Woods institutions are; how they evidently need to be guided by NGOs as well as by corporations and governments and how painfully slowly they have adapted their policies to the problems of the developing countries. That is putting it politely. Some would say that the IFIs represent economists in industrialised countries who are ideologically opposed to the interests of any country needing protection. Some would say that even the Labour leadership is currently listening to that viewpoint.
Much of the frustration of Seattle and Washington is about the failure of the IFIs to accommodate the interests of the poorer nations, even when they are swallowing the IMF medicine of adjustment and poverty reduction. Uganda is a current example. Who can blame the demonstrators, who represent widely different interests, for uniting to complain about that? The same organisations from all over the world have now become key players in the work of multinational organisations such as the World Bank. Some are now able to influence their policy even from within. For example, they have encouraged the bank's James Wolfensohn in his personal belief that good healthcare "makes good business sense".
Yet the NGOs themselves are learning lessons. About 10 years ago, the first sustained campaign against child labour expressed the somewhat romantic wish that all young people should be in school instead of weaving carpets, polishing gems or making footballs. Unfortunately, that campaign, which led to some genuine awareness of the extremes of child labour, backfired when it became an excuse for some industrialised countries to propose new core labour standards in trade negotiations. The desire to create an international code was nearly undermined by the resentment of the developing countries most affected.
766
Save the Children, to its credit, with a large South Asia programme of its own, was one of the few international NGOs which saw the need for proper balance. This Government are now one of the initiators and main signatories of the new ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour, which should help to take the sting out of the debate. But the example shows that NGOs are not always angels when it comes to footballs or even bananas in hard-nosed trade negotiations.
Nevertheless, wearing my NGO hat, I have no doubt that the actions and research of NGOs in reflecting the needs of the poorest and formulating codes of conduct—which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, described—whether on carpets, baby milk, or through ethical and fair trading initiatives, have been essential in persuading governments, institutions and corporations to shape policies and practices according to internationally agreed trading standards. It was encouraging to hear Mike Moore, the head of the WTO, giving the International Development Committee his views on the necessity for standards, although, as that committee has identified, he will need every ounce of help that sympathetic governments can provide and many more resources if he is to get anywhere near achieving his objectives.
NGOs such as OXFAM have also helped to influence attitudes in our own society in the north, through their work in the education sector and their advocacy here at Westminster, where they have helped to shape our economic and development policy. When it comes to the developing countries, many NGOs now work directly alongside governments, as well as with their own partners and are helping to cultivate a new climate of democratic accountability, even in a country such as Vietnam. Vietnam's President Tran Due Luong's statement to the G77 summit in Havana a few days ago—made available, incidentally, courtesy of the BBC and the Hanoi website—expressed a broadly held opinion in that group when he said that international institutions should be,
"further strengthened to achieve the goals of development, equality, transparency and non-discrimination",
and that developed countries should open their markets,
"for exports from developing nations, offer special and differentiated treatment in world trade and investment to South countries, [and] refrain from using environment, labour and investment standards as disguised measures to restrict and eliminate the competitiveness of developing countries".
Vietnam is a good example of a nation which, despite its past troubles and its present defects is actively entering global markets and even—dare I say— promoting democracy and respect for international institutions. Perhaps the IMF can take some credit for that.
Much of the talk, as we have heard, is about information technology and the speed of communications, especially in education. My son, whose company works in that area, tells me that "knowledge management" is a concept now being used by commercial firms and education institutions all

767
over the world. He says that for him the most exciting prospect is the global sharing of knowledge which was not long ago the province of a few western universities.
I am proud of my own gradual ability to overcome neo-Luddite tendencies. I know about India's enormous success with new technology. But equally, I am aware of the divisions in society which can arise when one section—let us say, Bangalore—is in possession and another—call it Bombay—is denied access. There are questions here about the right to knowledge and information, which is in practice available only to some. Of course it is positive. In the poorest communities, teachers, doctors and social workers can save lives by using the Internet. But the same opportunities become available to the sharks and the less ethically minded companies—dare I say international corporations—which merely speed up the process of their exploitation. We know where most of their knowledge comes from: 96 out of 111 US delegates to the World Trade Organisation came from the US private sector.
The stated advantages of globalisation are not always apparent to those who may turn into its victims. Investment rules without regulations or standards can destroy the livelihoods of, for example, fishing communities which lose out to trawlers or commercial prawn farms, or small farmers who are sacrificed to agribusiness. The drama of the Narmada dams in central India demonstrated how easily the outside world can conspire in human and environmental disaster. In the words of Claire Melamed, a Christian Aid policy adviser, at the UNCTAD meeting in February,
"For investment to be beneficial to poor communities, we need to ensure that … it does not harm the poor by destroying the resources on which they depend".
The efforts of governments and aid agencies to extend micro-credit have proved a highly successful means of injecting capital and increasing income among the poorest, especially the informal sectors of third world cities. Investment in those cities is not just a form of poor relief but a means of bringing them closer to the global economy, giving them more access to the latest skills and technologies.
The EU's Lomé agreement is a unique example of protection in its best sense; not one which will inhibit trade, but one which recognises the strength of individual economies and their historical dependence on one or two commodities. Having heard the two relevant Secretaries of State give evidence this morning, I know that there is plenty of good will around in Government, but I have one or two questions for the Minister. Does he accept that globalisation is not yet favouring the poorest countries and that the market share of the 48 LDCs has fallen drastically in the past two decades to below 0.5 per cent of world trade? Will he confirm that models of duty free access for LDCs such as Lomé must not be threatened under the WTO regime? Finally, does he agree that non-discrimination must not become a sacred cow of any new trade regime?
6.57 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Borrie for introducing the debate. I wish too to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on his imaginative and, indeed, upbeat maiden speech. It must be quite a dilemma for the BBC to know whether it should cover it. In any event, we look forward to many more contributions from that quarter.
There are three aspects of the issue that I want to cover. First, the question of what are the constituencies that we all represent in this kind of debate. Secondly, how can large multinational corporations live in harmony with very varied parent and host nations and their workforces? Thirdly, how does all that fit into the emerging world governance system?
I start from the question of constituencies, perhaps rather surprisingly, because it is worth asserting that we all have constituencies, whether geographical—as in Burton on Trent—or, in my case, a broadly based trade union constituency and, I like to believe, a European and a global constituency. I say right at the start that I am, on balance, upbeat. Let us consider, for example, the transfer of technology to the less wealthy parts of the world and all the other areas mentioned by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Not only am I all for it, but it is precisely what the development movement has been seeking for decades.
After leaving Cambridge my first job included a contract with the World Bank in Uganda on transport infrastructure. As they say about one's first love affair, that country and its problems has a special place in my heart.
Given that politics is about giving people an acceptable vision of their role in society, how can one relate Uganda to a constituency such as Burton-on-Trent? I see that as the issue, rather than assessing upside versus downside per se. Unless we factor in both of those constituencies—I use rather different language from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf —our members will no longer believe that we represent their interests and they will turn to people who claim to represent them more directly.
People's living standards depend, first, on their role as producers—their income, security, pension and so on—and, secondly, on their role as consumers. I do not believe that there is much mileage in juxtaposing one as if, in some sense, it replaces the other.
Incidentally, the trade unions are the only bodies, in what nowadays is called civil society, that have substantial memberships and that make agreements in every part of the world and trans-nationally. That creates an enormously valuable "cement" in the world system that is inadequately understood. Who else will bring together representatives of the work force in the various plants around the world?
It is also worth pointing out that, at present and historically, the percentage of workers in trade unions is the main correlation with equality, both at national and inter-country level. I hope that no one will weep crocodile tears about the growth of inequality and then

769
cast aspersions on the role of the unions. After all, unions are the only support that an individual can have in a negotiation with a large corporation, as the chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, recently adduced in a remarkable lecture.
More generally, what should be said about the role of the large multi-national corporations, a question posed by my noble friend Lord Borrie? In the 1970s those corporations were, according to the UN, transnational corporations. I was a so-called expert adviser to a UN commission with that title.
The terms "multi-national" or "trans-national" are misnomers in that overwhelmingly it is still the case that such corporations are not really multi-national, but ethnocentric, as some academics call them. The board of directors of a Japanese corporation are Japanese; the board of directors of an American corporation are American; the board of directors of a German corporation are German and so on. There are some notable exceptions but that is the general rule. There are glass ceilings for non-nationals of either sex.
I say that such corporations are large, which may be self-evident, but there may be those who would wish to deny that and say that small is beautiful. That may be so, but that is not what we see in the spate of mergers in banking, manufacturing, hotels, airlines, tourism and so on. The main logical corollary of globalisation is that we are no longer able to regulate the economy and industry by national rules alone. Hence the big idea for many of my generation is to use the European Union as a step towards global rules in many new areas. The paradox is that the United Nations' system is not in a position to supervise an overall system of rules, even though there are those—myself included— who say that that is exactly what is needed to bring together the work of bodies such as the bank, the fund, the WTO, the ILO, UNCTAD, and other acronyms that add up to a long list.
The United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations was quite near to agreeing a code of practice, ranging from the rights of host countries to the rights of inward investors and the repatriation of capital. Eventually, it was blocked by an unholy alliance of Moscow and Washington, the former on the grounds that socialist corporations could not be included, and the latter on the grounds that it was all socialism anyway.
Countries like India and Brazil were strong supporters, and still are. The least developed group of countries has the main problem with the drawing up of a global set of rules, as we have found on Sub-Committee A of the European Communities Committee which is preparing a report on the EU mandate for the WTO, post Seattle.
An interesting fact is that the fastest growing area of globalisation today is the private services sector that is developing bilateral and multilateral agreements outside the scope of the WTO. They are doing so by bringing forward agreements that effectively bite on the internal policy of the host country in many aspects of company and tax law. Therefore, I cannot accept that labour and environmental standards should be
770
excluded from bilateral or multilateral agreements solely on the grounds that they touch on the internal affairs of the country concerned. The only logic in that is that we need one law for the investors and another for the workers.
Where can we find an emerging consensus on all these matters and one that builds bridges between north and south? There can be no better place to start than with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Perhaps I may quote from his address last year at Davos when he proposed a global compact with business on human rights, labour and the environment. The Secretary-General, who has an umbrella role, referred to the fragility of globalisation. He said:
"history teaches that imbalances between the economic, social and political realms can never be sustained for very long … Specifically, I call on you—individually through your firms and collectively through your business associations—to embrace, support and enact a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards and environmental practices".
One reason why it is said that it is difficult to get teeth into global systems of rules is that the stages of development of countries are too different. That argument has some force, but I believe that it can be overplayed. After all, we have a strengthened International Court of Justice and we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights inspired by Mrs Roosevelt in 1945 and everyone knows that that is formidable.
We certainly have regard to the fact that on some issues we cannot have a global benchmark immediately, such as on maternity rights. But we are not talking about that. In the time available I shall refer to only one aspect raised by my noble friend Lord Desai. Surely it is a canard to say that we are talking about labour conditions being identical around the world. That is a canard and I cannot let is pass. We do not propose that. On the labour front, we propose the four minimum core labour standards of the ILO, which, as everyone knows, relate to freedom of association, child labour, forced labour and discrimination in employment.
I am running out of time, so I conclude by saying that we cannot have a code in the world system that gives business interests what they want—the promotion of free trade alone, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson has pointed out—and no rules governing anything else. That horse will not run. It does not have the legs and, as I indicated, we need to find a new compact.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, for much of his life the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has been a distinguished public servant so it is entirely appropriate that he should introduce a debate on this subject. All noble Lords are grateful to him.
I have always had great admiration for the good judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, since the day he hired me to present a programme on London Weekend Television. Tonight he has demonstrated again that

771
extreme good judgment. I am sure that noble Lords look forward to many contributions from him in years to come in this House.
My contribution tonight will be somewhat speculative and touch on some of the non-economic dimensions of multinational companies and their power and influence. As much of what I have to say will be in the critical vein, I emphasise that I am fully aware of the manifold benefits which the multinationals have brought and continue to bring to mankind.
It is a truism, is it not, to say that we live in a materialist age? The gradual collapse of Christianity in the West and the sudden collapse of ideological socialism more or less everywhere has left free market capitalism as the overwhelmingly dominant ideology. At the same time, consumerist preoccupations fuel and are fuelled by a radical individualism which has as another expression a personal liberalism bordering on libertinism.
The trouble with capitalism is that of itself it is fundamentally amoral; that is to say, it has no in-built or essential moral values, but only the utilitarian one of maximisation of profit. Of course, I am fully aware, as we all are, of the fact that the majority of individual business and professional people try to bring to their firms their own moral commitments. Charities like Business in the Community and the Prince of Wales Business Forum do good work to that end.
None the less, and while happily noting the many exceptions (particularly among unquoted and small companies), the large corporations live in a tooth-and-claw environment, devoid of sentiment, driven by the bottom line. In that respect the City of London and Wall Street are probably the most ruthless, short-term, short-sighted and narrow-minded markets in the world. Their influence contrasts starkly with other countries, even Germany. I suggest that BMW would never have contemplated doing there what it did here.
The modern multinational often cultivates a sense of being stateless; of having no fixed abode. That suits its attempts to avoid identification with the diplomacy of any specific country—it can get in the way of tough decisions if there are loyalties beyond the company itself—and neutrality often suits its tax purposes.
Huge companies also mean huge salaries, with huge bonuses and option pay-outs. Any linkage with any normal sense of what is fair and reasonable has more or less disappeared. Questions of reward are truly amoral, relating solely to what the market may bear. Those words may be harsh, but the reality is often harsh and we too often pussy-foot around it. We kid ourselves that these grandiose excesses of global-scale capitalism are victimless. But they are not. It is odd that the first Labour Government for 18 years presides over a national society of fast-widening differentials in a rich world of rising poverty. It is little wonder that we now have a full-blown crisis of recruitment even in professions such as teaching, social work, medicine and legal aid law firms.
772
I turn now to the largely overlooked potential conflict between globalisation and democracy. Big business needs big government to control it. After all, that is a key rationale of ever closer integration within the European Union. However, both big business and big government exist uneasily with real democracy, especially where—as is broadly the case—big business will generally only do what is right so long as its competitors are compelled to do the same. Yet endless regulation, which the unscrupulous will in any event ever seek to circumvent, has already reached the point of self-suffocation, with all the obnoxious fall-out which that brings in terms of relative law observance.
It is a futile delusion to pretend that the democratic deficit is mainly a problem of inadequate information. Democracy can be vitalised only by a real relationship between citizens and the institutions of the state, including large businesses. Real democracy is about belonging and identity. On the part of its adherents it requires a sense of some control over their lives— social, political and economic.
But as regards the large multinationals (as ever, I generalise), one finds a combination of distant, anonymous and footloose ownership and control; minimal civic input to the local communities and societies in which they operate; an absence of committed loyalty to the locations in which they operate; plus a policy of mobility of key personnel, which largely prevents those people providing leadership in their temporary communities, and that is crucial. And those and other characteristics, which I do not have time to mention, can and often do put big business at odds with what democracy and society desperately need. I wholly concur with what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said in relation to cumulative disadvantage. I commend to your Lordships the report of the Policy Action Team on community self-help, which is one of the key teams trying to grapple with social exclusion. If we look at the report, we will find that community self-help is now recognised within the Prime Minister's Office and the Home Office as being perhaps the key to dealing with social exclusion.
Of course, one needs a competitive economy for jobs and taxes. It is also true that many more businesses are taking corporate citizenship seriously and that ethical purchasing and investment are rising. But it is also true, as I tried briefly to explain, that there is a bitter harvest from some, if not much, of the globalisation we are experiencing: over-legislation which becomes ever less effective; managerialisation of government; a growing disaffection with democracy; a rapid increase in work-related stress; a widespread decline in levels of work satisfaction; a related decline in family cohesion, with all that that must devastatingly mean; and, above all, a spiritual hunger and a consumerist shallowness about modern culture which looks so good but often feels so empty.
So too we have a global ecology which may already have been blitzed beyond repair, overstretched by the universal dash to ape us westerners. And with it has come a no less radical undermining of the human ecology, so that the very diversity of lifestyles, cultures and to some extent values which make for organic

773
identity, rootedness and self-confidence, are being demolished before our very eyes. The organic is being replaced by the contrived; the particular by the general; the vivid by the insipid.
Of course, I have painted tonight a picture which is too black and white, and in the process done too little to commend what great good is done by multinationals. But I believe that we have become too complacent about the assumed virtues of global materialism. The protesters of Seattle and Washington no doubt instinctively felt more than they could persuasively rationalise. Maybe we suffer the reverse defect.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Borrie for this timely debate, and my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for a devastating critique of the downside of globalisation.
In my contribution I should like to meet the challenge of my noble friend Lord Desai and limit my speech to the impact on employment commissions of globalisation. Before doing so, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on an excellent maiden speech and urge support of one aspect of his remarks; namely, the strengthening of national cultures. As an extensive traveller, it is my unfortunate experience to find, not so much that BBC World dominates the world, but that CNN dominates the world. In my view, civilisation will have ended when every town and village on this globe has a McDonald's and we all speak CNN. CNN is not English and has a vocabulary of around one quarter of that of the normal English-speaking person. But that is perhaps prejudice on my part.
I turn to the vexed question of Seattle—that of core level standards—and attempt to meet the challenge of my noble friend Lord Desai. He said that we must not take away from the developing world the only advantage it has; that is, that it can compete on labour where it cannot compete on technology. I do not demonise the role of multinationals, as some trade unionists do. However, we have to think imaginatively how we can change the attitude of multinationals.
First, I turn to core labour standards. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall said that we are talking of only four basic rights: the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining; the right of freedom from forced labour; the right of freedom from child labour; and the right of freedom from discrimination. That is a compact which any country in the world—whether it be Tanzania or the state of Texas—should be able to sign up to, because those four rights do nothing other than enable workers to seek to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
A month ago in UNCTAD people were still saying that the core labour standards and the social clause that trade unions desire comprise an international minimum wage. That is absolute nonsense. The minimum wage will be what trade unions, employers and the governments concerned determine can be afforded. However, we have to find a format for these rights that is not threatening. I declare an interest as
774
vice chairman of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. We need to debate how we create a mechanism which on the one hand protects core labour standards but which cannot be misused for protectionist purposes.
We all say that we are against protectionism but those who wish not to have a social clause in the WTO are fearful that we do not mean what we say. I wish to debate how one creates a mechanism that could not and would not be used as a protectionist mechanism by a developed country. I believe that we have made progress. In 1998 all the member nations of the ILO— some 174—signed up to a declaration of fundamental rights at work whereby governments accept that their membership of the ILO gives them the responsibility to ensure that they enact in their countries policies of freedom of association and collective bargaining, freedom from forced labour, freedom from child labour and freedom from discrimination. All of the conventions on those fundamental rights have been ratified by over 100 member states. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to Convention 182—this, uniquely, has been unanimously endorsed by the International Labour Conference———onextreme forms of child labour. That is now part of the package.
However, what does one do when a government clearly have no intention of protecting those rights? How do we square that with globalisation? Globalisation will fail unless the vast majority of people believe that they are beneficiaries of it. Twenty years of globalisation in Asia have led to high rates of growth on the part of the so-called "Asian tigers". However, those growth rates had two characteristics: first, the countries concerned had semi-authoritarian regimes which denied trade union rights; and, secondly, not one of them introduced any form of social security. When the Asian crisis arose, Korean factory workers fought in the factories to defend their jobs as they had nowhere else to go. They lost everything with the loss of their jobs. Some 14 million people in Indonesia lost their jobs.
I shall not enter the argument about multinational wages being driven down. However, Nike paid workers 7.60 dollars per hour in the United States whereas in Indonesia it pays 2.35 dollars per day. It claims that is the minimum wage but others suggest otherwise. The Barclay brand of Nike shoes which sold at 81 dollars in the US at the time of the transfer of production still sells for 81 dollars as far as I am aware. Therefore the beneficiaries of that transfer have not been American consumers. To judge from the wage rates in Indonesia, the Indonesian workers have not benefited from that either. Michael Jordan has certainly been a beneficiary, as a 19 million dollar contract to promote Nike would suggest!
How can we help those Nike workers in Indonesia? Nike could double the wage rate and add a dollar to the price of its shoes. However, I do not even suggest that. I suggest that if the workers of Indonesia have the right to form trade unions and the right to bargain with Nike there will, over time, be a sharing of the proceeds. Until the recent change of government in that country that was not possible. I say to those who

775
say that sanctions are not appropriate that it is no coincidence that the decree which ratified all core labour conventions was signed by the previous president of Indonesia on the eve of a decision about whether his country should receive a 43 million dollar loan from the International Monetary Fund. That is not coincidence and it is not democracy because the president of an authoritarian government can sign a decree overnight to reverse a policy that has operated for 15 or 16 years.
How do we fix these principles in the minds of governments and in the minds of those multinationals of which we are critical? As has been said, those companies are not truly multinational. Boards of management tend to come from a single nation state; namely, the host nation. In their home countries they tend to behave in a civilised manner. They are not ogres; they are reasonable men and women—mostly men—with families and religious and ethical beliefs. Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN is appealing to chief executives of multinationals to realise that they have a moral responsibility in regard to the behaviour of their subsidiaries, their managers and their suppliers. I believe that we should take that process forward, but how do we do so?
"Geneva 2000" will be held in June, in Geneva. This is the "world social summit plus five". The noble Baroness who represented the then government at the social summit five years ago is not present tonight. At that summit there emerged the first enunciation of the core labour standards in the form we now know them. The position would be enhanced if the special session of the General Assembly in Geneva in June were to endorse the case that the ILO declaration of fundamental rights should be enshrined in all UN policies. That would include the ILO, the World Bank and the IMF, but not the World Trade Organisation which is not part of the United Nations.
We need to establish a working party in the WTO, if only to determine what is possible. However, at the end of the day some measures need to be adopted that can be applied to recalcitrant rogue states. I refer to Burma in this connection. Forced labour is endemic in Burma. The International Labour Organisation held a commission of inquiry which cost half a million dollars and involved three eminent jurists. A 256-page report was produced which catalogued the horrors to which that nation state has subjected its own people. Burma has been condemned at the International Labour Conference and by the ILO's governing body. It has also been condemned by the UN at large. However, nothing has persuaded the Government of Burma to change their laws to conform with the conventions that they have entered into voluntarily. In such extreme cases an international body—the World Trade Organisation is perhaps the most appropriate in this context—should be able to signal that a change of policy is required if sanctions are not to be applied.
Ironically, in June, the ILO will consider taking action against Burma under Article 33 of the ILO constitution. That is the first time that such far-reaching measures have been considered in 80 years. If
776
the motion is carried any member state can take any actions supported by international law that they deem appropriate to make Burma fulfil its obligations under ILO Convention 29 on forced labour. The issue of core labour standards and their application requires major debate. I fear that the North and the South are talking past each other, not to each other. I hope that such a dialogue will enable us to enjoy the full fruits of globalisation but with civilised standards which can be applied both in the North and in the South.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join others in warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for this opportunity to discuss this ambitious and wide-ranging topic of the economic and social effects of globalisation and its impact on fair competition, employment conditions and the environment. At the outset I confess an interest. For 30 years I spent my time at the IEA as a font of teaching on the principles of market economy. As a result I accept some small share of responsibility for having helped to wean both the Tory and the Labour leaders from their post-war delusions over the mixed economy.
It is truly difficult in this civilised assembly to recall that a mere 30 years ago even such outstanding intellectual exemplars as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, were saddled in office with beliefs which today have banished the likes of Wedgwood-Benn and K. Livingstone to the lunatic fringe.
Some of the speeches that I have heard which are now calling for fairly detailed regulation of the globalised economy come from people, let us face it, who once believed that governments could run the commanding heights of the economy; that incomes policy would remedy the inflation caused by monetary incontinence and trade union monopoly; and that entrepreneurship was little more than a front for exploitation; in short, that market forces were a discredited form of ideology.
Where we were once almost all Keynesians, today we are, thank heavens, almost all followers of Adam Smith. Even new Labour politicians, mercifully, have learned that all their ambitions for economic progress—and therefore for future electoral success— depend on working with the grain of market forces. After all, what are market forces except the actions of free men and women acting out the interplay of consumer choice and producer competition in a free society?
In principle, the phenomenon of globalisation means no more than the widening of competitive markets by a dual process. First comes the removal or penetration of national barriers to trade and investment between countries, and, secondly, the unstoppable explosion of information about changing products and services, their relative prices, performance and availability. In simple terms, this process holds out the prospect of speeding-up innovation and multiplying output ever more copiously.

777
Before turning to the undoubted problems, we should almost daily remind ourselves of the neglected boons of global free trade. In 1776, Adam Smith pointed out that there were mutual gains to be had from trade between countries concentrating on that for which they enjoyed the greatest comparative advantage. It now seems so obvious.
For me, free trade is the best panacea available for world poverty. The mindless protestors against the WTO and the IMF who talk of exploitation, must be patiently instructed—perhaps by the admirable noble Lord, Lord Desai—that the poorest countries in Africa, for example, are those least touched by international trade and the dreaded multinational companies. Trade alone has enabled Hong Kong, in a couple of generations, to trade up, as I like to put it, from low Chinese wages to fully European standards.
If the chief economic effect of globalisation is to move faster towards the annihilation of poverty, it cannot be denied that its social effects must inevitably be disturbing and even periodically disruptive. New products and services, different lines of domestic and foreign trade, fresh sources of competition, all threaten existing employment and investment.
I have periodically ventured to remind the House that it should be a little more backward looking. Even the Tories—let alone Labour and the Liberal Democrats—are not sufficiently backward looking. Instead of straining for novelty by seeking some illusory new economics of a third way, I urge all party men to pay attention to the wisdom of the neoclassical economists.
I offer a new name for the 21st century—a new name even, I hope, for the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who knows more than most of us about economic theory. In 1934 the late A.G.B. Fisher, I believe from New Zealand, wrote a book entitled The Clash of Progress and Security. His simple theme was that economic progress was impeded by natural, universal resistance to change.
In 1945 he expanded this analysis with a second volume entitled Economic Progress and Social Security. For present purposes, I summarise his warning that, faced with rapid economic growth, attempts to preserve the status quo by resisting timely adjustment of employment must aggravate rather than moderate the disruptive consequences of change.
Time permits only the briefest examination of some lessons for policy. First comes the importance of giving more weight to competition for consumer choice, which favours new products and injects dynamism while, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has emphasised, monopoly and producer interests always seek to protect and prolong the status quo. But, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I believe that globalisation, allied to media publicity, will on balance prove great solvents of the established dominant producers, the dreaded multinational companies which haunt the unlikely liberal, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
778
Secondly, classical economists have long recognised—and new Labour was quick to emphasise—the continuing importance of basic education, training and retraining, which are among the top priorities if the labour force is to adapt to new opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, did very well to emphasise the limits of present policies in this respect.
Thirdly, if occupational flexibility is important, I continue to think that geographical mobility is no less so. That would imply a liberal policy on road building, land release and development that would certainly be unpalatable to such old Labour lags as John Prescott.
Fourthly, if British entrepreneurs are to respond swiftly to the impact of unforeseen change, it seems a truism that the less regulation with which they are encumbered the better. Even more than the Tories, new Labour has allowed Brussels to hobble small businesses, which should be the seedbeds of flexible economic progress. I solemnly fear that within the next decade or two the restless global economy is likely increasingly to relegate continental Europe, if not the whole of the EU, to an economic backwater.
Finally, for now, conventional social security schemes are not likely to offer more than what Herbert Morrison more than 50 years ago called,
"at best nothing more than ambulance and salvage work".
Faced with the quickening pace of change, families will need more ample financial reserves than the state can or should guarantee. From rising incomes, private savings in all forms, including personal investment and insurance, would be a far better cushion for change than going into debt to tide over the scale of adjustments that lie ahead.
It is a measure of Gordon Brown's complacent myopia that, having soaked insurance companies in his first budget and wound up PEPs, he could think of nothing better than the complex, stingy ISAs. It is high time that we moved towards taxing expenditure and exempting savings, an idea much loved by the late Lord Kaldor. Our aim should be to spread substantial nest-eggs against the fluctuations in family fortunes which must accompany the otherwise enriching processes of globalisation.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for introducing the debate. It has proved to be most illuminating and, at times, quite controversial. I particularly thank him for defining the issues so clearly, as have many subsequent speakers. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birt, on his excellent maiden speech. His point about investing in national culture—which found particular resonance with the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Brett— is something that will bear further thought and debate in your Lordships' House.
I am not sure that we have resolved whether globalisation is the Holy Grail that will bring mutual benefits to the peoples and environments of all countries and in trade terms bring increased wealth to

779
many, or whether it is a satanic plot of the multinationals to carve up the world into market places and factories. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on how we need to link constituencies, so that these issues can be debated in different parts of the world with the aim of reaching some understanding and having some common themes, were particularly interesting.
We on these Benches believe that the outcome can be a fairer and more responsible world. We need to make it clear that that outcome will come about only if the rules governing such a process of globalisation are in place and are followed and that the non-observance of the rules will be strictly dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, painted a particularly graphic picture of what happened in Korea and Indonesia when those rules were not followed.
Until now, those around the table in the trade arena wrote the rules and frequently, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, have not even provided a seat at that table for many other stakeholders. It was no wonder that so many developing countries and many NGOs which work on social and environmental issues felt so excluded and angered by, first, the GATT rounds and now the WTO rounds. I do not believe that they are, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, mindless protesters. Many of them have thought deeply about the issues. We certainly need a democratisation of the process.
Just after Seattle a Question was asked in the House on this subject. In reply to one question the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"In a sense the World Trade Organisation is too democratic".— [Official Report, 6/12/99 col. 1008.]
The noble Lord may have been reflecting some of the frustration of the previous weekend when the vote not to proceed had been very difficult. I hope that the Minister can tell us the Government's ideas on how all countries can be part of the process—not just that the developing countries' concerns are "taken care of. Developing countries would not be happy with that. They want to have a voice.
The process of globalisation has until now been either unmanaged or mismanaged. It has failed to deal equitably with the three essential pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, reminded us of the comments of the UN Secretary-General on how essential it is to bring those three strands together. Increased economic activity is unlikely to bring any social benefits unless all three of those pillars are balanced equitably. Unrestrained increased economic activity will almost always bring environmental damage. The full realisation that trade and the environment are inextricably linked is a fairly recent realisation. Although the world has begun to understand that there is a relationship, it has not yet found mechanisms to assess the environmental impacts of trade policies or to judge the effects on trade of environmental measures. More sophisticated, but the right way forward, is the use of trade measures to achieve environmental policy aims. The noble Earl,
780
Lord Sandwich, made the valid point that environmental measures must not be seen as disguised trade barriers. Perhaps, regrettably, in the past, they have been used as trade barriers. That would be a misuse of them and would bring them into disrepute.
The issues of environmental degradation are truly global. Global warming, the loss of the ozone layer, the poisoning of water sources and polluted air are not issues that remain within the boundaries of nations or continents. The fact is that the mechanisms for liberalising trade are progressing much faster and are being much more adequately resourced than mechanisms for protecting the global environment and social concerns. Can the Minister say what proposals the Government have for encouraging the international community to resource these areas of work? Are the Government willing to sponsor investigations into the Tobin tax—an international tax raised as a percentage tax on foreign exchange transactions? It has many merits to recommend it. At a time when we are struggling to find resources, it would be one way forward.
The EU and this country have been pressing for greater clarity in the relationship between the WTO rules and the multilateral environment agreements. The environmental aspects have been subject to some very good protocols and conventions, such as the Montreal convention on trade in substances that deplete the ozone layer and in Kyoto on climate change. There is also a convention on biodiversity. They were drawn up in the 1980s and 1990s. Although we have signed up to them, as has the EU, they need vigorous implementation and enforcement throughout the world.
Almost every day in the media we come across new figures of species under threat. Although bigger furry species such as tigers or giant sea otters get more press coverage, the rate of projected loss of plant and insect species is appalling. For how many years have we been worrying about the loss of rain forest—10, 15 or 20— and has the rate of loss slowed down? We are not very good at measuring the effect and taking responsibility for it. If we are not, how can we expect poorer countries to start to implement multilateral environmental agreements? They certainly need additional resources and those could be distributed by the Global Environment Facility. We have the mechanisms but not the resources.
The United Nations Environment Programme is recognised as carrying out most useful work but its budget is tiny—minuscule—at 100 million dollars per year compared to the scale of the problems that require urgent attention. It needs to be given the resources, the powers and the responsibilities commensurate with the urgency of the issues. The environment's health in its widest sense is crucial. It should not be seen as a preserve of the world's environment Ministers, though I pay tribute to Michael Meacher, who made a particularly strong showing at Seattle at the last WTO round. He tried to broaden out the issues and make colleagues understand that the environment should be the responsibility of every department and every

781
Minister. Can the Minister say how the Government view environmental issues? Do they have a cross-cutting international environmental approach?
I wish to turn briefly to noble Lords' comments on the social issues. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, gave an excellent explanation of why we may not be able to create global regulatory structures for social issues. It was very interesting if a little depressing. I should like to think that we would be able to create them. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, expanded on the difficulties of drawing up rules and gave us a detailed and interesting perspective. He said that if we focused just on full rights for workers, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, we would be able to come up with something that did not cut across the right of countries to self-determination in terms of labour.
As consumers, we need a better sense of what is the true cost of consumer items. We have no system of knowing what is the true cost of the cheap clothes we buy. If the losers are children and their education in the countries which produce those cheap clothes, we ought to know that. Our labelling system is truly underdeveloped. Indeed, in our own country we have developed neither eco-labelling nor any other kind. We need to provide a lead in that area.
Although I do not want to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross—the noble Lord's view of history is undoubtedly longer then mine—he exhorted us to be backward-looking. I should prefer us to be forward-looking. We on these Benches believe that, with our partners in the EU, we can make progress towards a prosperous and environmentally sound world. We need to work with our European partners, and indeed our partners in all parts of the world. The global village needs global government, but it certainly does not need a feudal squirearchy to manage it.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was enjoying the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, until the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and his noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rose to speak. Wracking my memory, I remembered Corporal Fraser in "Dad's Army", who at every turn said: "We're all doomed!". That seemed to be the dismal message from both noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. If the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, thinks that the modern world is terrible, I suggest that he joins the castaways who are busy experiencing a Hebridean winter for some dismal and rather silly television programme. I am not entirely sure whether it is made by the BBC or the other lot, but it seems to be a bit of a joke. If the noble Lord wants to experience an older and perhaps gentler world, he should try that. For my money, I prefer where we are now, with all its problems, to the kind of complaints and reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, seems to have about the modern world.
I do not believe that we are all doomed. Thank goodness for the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who in his maiden speech was much more positive and upbeat,
782
seeing the world in a more progressive way and welcoming globalisation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and as I certainly do. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred to globalisation being with us since ships set sail. That is true; and few countries know more than we do about sending ships all around the world to create wealth for this and many other countries. The noble Lord missed out the next stage of globalisation—the jet engine. It made an enormous difference to a great many ordinary people. Many of our citizens have abandoned our cold, rain-swept country for warmer climes this Eastertide, thanks entirely to the jet engine.
The real lift-off—space age globalisation—has been that given by information technology. If I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, correctly, he said that we cannot seek, Canute-like, to hold back the digital tide. Nor should we want to. The expansion of ships, navies, travel, and now communication will aid the world economy. According to the International Data Corporation, the number of Internet users world-wide was approximately 142 million at the end of 1998 and will grow to 399 million by the end of 2002. That growth will impact on trade with the advent of e-commerce. There is a Bill before the House on this very subject. It must be the only Bill that is not being taken through this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I must say that the noble Lord encapsulates globalisation: he is all over the Government, globalised by the Government—two debates today, two Questions earlier today, a Bill yesterday. I wonder whether any other government Ministers do any work. The noble Lord should talk to some of his trade union friends about his workload.
E-commerce, worth some 50 billion dollars in 1998, is projected to grow to 733 billion dollars by 2002. That is a huge increase. We can all see it happening. Earlier this year, I was on the other side of the world and I could not help but notice that almost every advertisement on television carried a reference to a website. I have since noticed that that is happening here. I am sorry to tell those on the Liberal Democrat Benches that there is nothing they can do to stop that developing. What we must do, and encourage all other countries in the world to do, is to take advantage of it. There are huge advantages in trade—and indeed in free speech. Is it not true that the Internet provides freedom of speech, even to some whose speech we do not like? It is a terrific opportunity for organisations. It gives them the means to communicate. I mentioned China.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was listening throughout to those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches—for instance to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on education and globalisation. I feel that he may have missed many of our points if he thinks that we are pessimistic.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I did not mention the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because I

783
excuse him from most of the follies of the Liberal Democrat Party, including, dare I say, an affection for the euro, but let us not get into that subject.
Globalisation will, in the words of the Economist, lead to,
"faster growth, cheaper imports, new technologies and the spur of [all kinds of competition including] foreign competition".
Of course there is a clash between the people who look at conditions in countries overseas and wonder whether we should be buying the products made there. Like other people in this country, I watch a television programme and wonder whether I should be buying the T-shirt or the football. But the alternative is often not "education, education, education"; it is perhaps the kind of starvation that we see in Ethiopia. It is not a black-and-white issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned, it may be cheap labour, but it may be the best or the only job that people can get, and it is a good deal better than the alternative. We must bear that in mind.
The commerce Minister of Thailand, who will take over as director-general of the WTO in 2002, said this about the question of labour rights:
"I have the feeling that some of the representatives from the developing countries … might take this opportunity to walk away from any agreement on a new round. I know it is an important issue for the United States administration, but to have trade sanctions linked to labour rights violation would be really ultimately highly detrimental".
The poorest people in the world do not work for multinationals. They do not work in modern export industries. They work in subsistence agriculture, or they do not work at all. We should remember that. While I listened with care and interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brett, which was balanced—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is a timed debate and I have only three minutes left.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the same Thai Minister advocated joint talks between the ILO and the WTO on the question that he has mentioned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the debate is time-limited. Normally, we do not intervene. I have a very few minutes left.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was trying to make the point that we must be careful to balance these matters and make sure that we do not drive work, even low-paid work, away from those countries. Once the work arrives there, once it begins to develop, once the wealth—which may not seem very much in our terms—begins to come in to those countries, they will begin to raise their standards, and of course we ought to encourage them to do that. But, frankly, the wealth has to begin there before we start to raise standards. It is a difficult problem.
784
One of the interesting points is that the World Bank, looking at east Asia, has stated that the number of people living on less than a dollar a day fell from 418 million in 1987 to 278 million in 1998. That may still be a large number of people, but the figure is half what it was just a few years ago. One of the key reasons for that measure of decreasing poverty in east Asia was growth in China—which saw an increase of 7.7 per cent a year in private consumption—and growing trade.
I have little doubt that, while many of us might put our hands in our pockets to give a donation to some of the aid organisations in which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is involved, it is perhaps more important that we actually buy their products and that we do not raise tariff barriers against them. Too often people who refer to labour standards, or any other standards, in seeking to raise tariff barriers simply want to protect the developed countries. That is wrong. We must work with developing countries and give them the opportunity to trade with us. We in the developed world are the only people with the money to buy their goods and services and, in that way, to lift them out of poverty.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been a characteristically well timed and wide-ranging debate. It is well timed because it occurs at a time when again we see the raising of consciousness in Washington, which also took place at and following the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle. If we debate this matter at a time when there are demonstrations in Washington perhaps we are doing better than they are. The debate is also characteristically wide ranging. If in 2½ hours we are to cover, at the invitation of my noble friend Lord Borrie,
"the economic and social effects of globalisation and its impact on fair competition, employment conditions and the environment".
it is very difficult for anyone, particularly a Minister who attempts to sum up, to deal with all of those matters adequately.
This has been a fascinating debate, which has had the huge advantage of attracting the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The noble Lord did exactly the right thing: he spoke on a subject that he knew about but which he was not known for knowing about; in other words, he avoided broadcasting—and an excellent job he made of it.
The only way that I can limit myself is by indulging my incurable preference for talking about the things that we can do something about rather than those that we can do nothing about. If I concentrate my remarks on our approach to globalisation through the main international body concerned with it, the World Trade Organisation, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. Globalisation, which gives rise to this debate, is the increasing internationalisation of economic activity. As many noble Lords have said, the huge increases in international trade and investment have been driven by a rapid change in communication and transport technologies. Here the speech of the noble Lord, Lord

785
Birt, was particularly appropriate. He referred to the power of digital technology and its effect on both culture and economic growth. But these changes have had a profound effect on all countries, both developed and less developed, in the global economy.
There are a number of misconceptions about globalisation, in particular in relation to the way that it affects environment and social standards. Globalisation is neither the destructive force that some people believe it is nor the Holy Grail to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred. I just take the view that it is a fact which we can do nothing about; we will not turn it back. Globalisation produces winners and losers. More often than not, the winners are those with open economies who have embraced the global economy. Among developing countries, those with more open economies have consistently grown faster than those with closed economies I do not know whether that provides the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with any consolation. I do not believe that the noble Lord alluded to Popper but he certainly referred to Adam Smith and reminded us of the theory of comparative advantage, which is appropriate to what which we are discussing today. That certainly struck a spark with my noble friend Lord Desai, in his fourth speech of the week. My noble friend did not remind us of his excellent article in the New Statesman last week which covered this very point.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the demonstrators in Seattle and Washington. We have sympathy for them because some of them are like us when we were young, perhaps with the exception of my noble friend Lord Desai who, as I recall, was always on the side of the revolting students. Nevertheless, we have sympathy with those who have an instinctive opposition to what they see as uncontrollable forces which become greater if they are international. They blame globalisation for the destruction of the environment, the undermining of social standards and the gulf between rich and poor. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who is still at heart a demonstrator, blamed globalisation for virtually everything in the world today; for example, the destruction of language and the fact that music is no longer comprehensible. He did not say it, but that was because he had only 10 minutes. It is a fundamental mistake to believe that we can turn back the clock on globalisation.
It is right for my noble friend Lord Borrie to expatiate on the downside of globalisation. I also understand the position of those like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who describe the scars of uncontrolled capitalist exploitation, which cannot be denied, but we must work with the world in which we live. We believe that the challenge for governments is to ensure that globalisation acts in the interests of people and the environment and contributes to the goal of sustainable development. That is our aim in the policies that we have adopted, which we seek to persuade the World Trade Organisation and other international organisations to undertake. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, recognises that the inclusion of NGOs in our delegation to Seattle— tribute was paid to my right honourable friend
786
Michael Meacher—was a major step forward that enabled us to set up a new network within the context of the WTO which has done a great deal of good.
It is easy to say that trade liberalisation is important to us. The UK is a major trading country; it is the fifth largest exporter of goods and the second largest exporter of services. In terms of investment stocks, the UK is also the world's second largest inward and outward investor. Therefore, it is vital to the UK economy that we maximise the benefits of global trade liberalisation. But I hope that we go further than that and seek to use the pressure for trade liberalisation for constructive purposes. We see the World Trade Organisation as essential in meeting the challenge of globalisation. The WTO, and its predecessor GATT, has brought enormous benefits in terms of sustained growth in the world economy.
There is a profound difference between the WTO and the IMF, World Bank and United Nations: democracy. After all, in the WTO every single member state has an equal voice. When did the United Nations or International Monetary Fund last venture to censure the United States? Yet both the US and EU have been censured by the World Trade Organisation and have had to act on it—and a good thing too, even if we do not agree with the particular case. The WTO rules offer equal rights to all trading nations to the particular advantage of smaller states. If we did not have a multilateral rules-based trading system smaller countries would not have protection against the greater trading weight of large economies. The multilateral trading system allows small and medium-sized businesses, not just large companies—I shall turn to multinational corporations—to trade freely and with confidence, and that is one of the most important spurs to innovation and improving competitiveness.
I turn to multinational corporations. It is inevitable that as markets become more open companies structure themselves in the best way. Therefore, increasingly companies have become players on the global stage. In the past century we have seen some conspicuously horrible examples of how multinational companies have exploited the countries in which they have operated and to which they have sold.
I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Desai advocated capitalism in one country. If so, he would have been the Stalinist of new Labour! But I think that he used the issue as an Aunt Sally rather than applauding it.
But of course we recognise the fear—it was expressed most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—that companies may grow beyond the reach of national governments and become powerful enough to exert pressure on governments, in particular those of less well off countries. That is why it is important to heed the call of my noble friend Lord Borrie for considering the impact of globalisation on fair competition. We agree with what he said. We agree that although in this country we have rightly given companies more freedom through deregulation, at the same time we have balanced that with fair trading and

787
competition rules and—dare I say it?—with the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill which is progressing through this House at present.
My noble friend Lord Borrie gave examples of control of misleading advertising and of health and safety. But of course there are many more. It is true that multinational corporations which behave well in their home countries need comparable control of their activities when they are working in developing countries. We shall return to that when we talk about labour standards.
The answer must be that in the multinational trading system we want to advance some of those principles of fairness as well. We take the view that effective competition authorities are in the interests of all countries and consumers, and in particular restrictive business practices in developing countries could be a significant constraint on growth and therefore on the opportunity for the people in those countries to benefit through a better quality of life. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, by analogy talked about the task of competition being to ensure that technology is not restricted. I think that that applies very much to the role of competition in multinational trade.
So how do we approach it; and how do we, as one of those participating in the European Union approach to the WTO, approach this multilateral framework of common principles of competition? We present the argument in this way. The more economies are integrated into the global system the more they need competition rules to control the power of global businesses in their markets. It is argued that the absence or inappropriate enforcement of competition rules can create barriers to trade. That is certainly true. A commitment by WTO members to a common set of competition law principles would be a helpful means of addressing both issues. Countries also need to have measures to control restrictive business practices in order to reap the full benefits of trade liberalisation.
I turn to environmental and social controls. These are the other aspects of this issue after competition. Of course there are concerns that trade liberalisation has an adverse effect on environmental and social standards. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was the most eloquent exponent of that view. But we believe that an open, transparent and stable world trading system is not only compatible with progress towards our other aims of promoting sustainable development but also essential for it. That is the way in which we shall have higher environmental, social and other regulatory standards.
We recognise many examples to the contrary. But trade liberalisation can help to improve the efficiency with which the world's resources are used, and the spread of cleaner technology. Rising income levels are associated with improving environmental and social standards. This happens because countries have the wealth to tackle those issues and richer households are more demanding that their authorities do so. Where economic activity is unsustainable—trade can act to magnify it—it is essential that environmental considerations are taken into account.
788
The relationship between trade and labour standards has always been a sensitive issue; and it was today. There have been calls—although not today— for the World Trade Organisation to take on new roles in enforcing environmental and social standards: for there to be a social clause for the WTO. There are dangers here. It would mean the WTO acting in areas which include other international institutions such as the International Labour Organisation—it has found an effective voice in my noble friend Lord Brett—and the United Nations environment programme. We should not make the WTO solely responsible for dealing with environmental and social issues. We need to ensure greater co-operation between the WTO, the ILO and UN bodies so that global problems are addressed coherently.
Specifically we do not think that restricting imports would be an effective way of tackling issues such as child labour. My noble friend Lord Borrie blamed the corporations for child labour; and, of course, to some extent they are to blame. But, as my noble friend Lord Brett recognised, there is also indigenous child labour. Carpet works are not multinationals. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made the same point. The primary cause of child labour is poverty. Trade sanctions could increase the problem by displacing child workers into the informal or non-expert sectors where conditions could be even worse. My noble friend Lord Desai had that right—he had support in the most unlikely form of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—when saying that it is often the best job they have. Of course these are terrible aspects and it is right that we support the four standards expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Brett. But if developing countries are to grow they must have access to world markets.
I turn rather rapidly to the environment. Of all the speakers, only the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this issue. We look to see that trade liberalisation and sustainable development are mutually supportive. We went to Seattle with a number of specific objectives. We wanted a commitment for environmental considerations to be taken into account in all negotiations because we think that there are important synergies between trade, environmental protection and development in such areas as agriculture, fishing, environmental goods and services, and technical barriers to trade. The European Union is committed to conducting a sustainability impact assessment of proposed new trade measures. We completed the preliminary stages of this before we got to Seattle.
We also want a new round of negotiations to include three priorities on trade and environment: first—I hope that this answers the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—greater legal clarity in the relationship between trade measures taken under multilateral environment agreements and WTO rules; secondly, confirming the WTO compatibility of open, transparent voluntary labelling schemes, in particular eco-labelling schemes; and, thirdly, examining the scope for precautionary action within WTO rules. It is important in the interests of all governments to be able to take measures under the precautionary principle

789
which are science based and proportionate in protecting their environments. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support for the existing conventions and for the work of Michael Meacher.
The noble Baroness asked me about the Tobin tax. There is a debate on this subject in another place. I suggest that she reads the Government's reply to that debate rather than expect me to repeat it—since I have not read it myself.
Clearly the WTO is at the heart of many of the concerns expressed by your Lordships and which are in the realm of the possible of politics. Although clearly trade liberalisation and the growth of international multinational trade are an essential element of our objectives for improving the standards of living in the world, and Clare Short and the Department for International Development have ambitious targets in that respect, we believe profoundly that the increasing trade liberalisation will achieve the objectives we want only if it is allied with proper concern for fair competition, employment conditions and the environment.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, suggested, the terms of my Motion were ambitious, my ambitions have been fulfilled. Noble friends from all parts of the House have ranged very widely over the subject. I did not expect each and every one of them to examine every aspect of globalisation, but my ambitions have in more than a sense been fulfilled, because that was done by my noble friend the Minister, who touched on virtually every aspect. We all benefit from that in coming towards the end of the debate.
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sports Clubs
8.21 p.m.
Lord Addingtonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to support amateur sports clubs in their work for the social development and health of the community.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like first to thank all those noble Lords who put their names down to speak in the debate at the end of an already full and taxing day. I hope that we shall be able to shed a little light on the workings of a part of our community that is very important to many of us throughout our lives, draw from the Government their attitude to future assistance for the development of small amateur sports clubs and give them some suggestions on how they might be able to enhance that assistance.
I must make a declaration of interest at the start. I am captain of the parliamentary rugby team, known as the Commons and Lords rugby team, to which I shall not refer again. Also for 21 years now I have been a
790
member of a small rugby club in Norwich, both as a player and as a vice-president, and occasionally, as in last season, both. It is called the Lakenham-Hewitt Rugby Football Club. I was told that if not my person at least my dignity would be in grave danger if I did not give our results for this season, which were: second in Eastern Counties III North; runners up in the county cup final; played 30, won 22, lost eight; points for 701; points against 269. It is one of our best seasons ever, and we were still only second in two-bit competitions—but never mind.
The club provided the background for my starting the debate. I have been a member since I was 15. My reason for joining was that a friend was playing for the club. I think he was 16, and I was 15. His uncle was also a player in the team, and I decided that it was a good idea to join because I would know somebody there and I could get to the ground easily on the bus from where I lived. The club was then housed in a hut, made of breeze blocks, at the end of a steep slope—steep, at least, by Norfolk standards; steep enough, indeed, to have a dry ski run on it.
I discovered in my first game that the pitch was on a reclaimed rubbish dump, and we were level with a river. I remember standing on the pitch and sinking so far into it that I could not see the tops of my boots. I was not the only person who had to be pulled out after a certain scrum.
We developed the ground and facilities for several years, until the ground became just about playable, when we had to move elsewhere in Norwich because a road was being built. The result is that this wonderful establishment is now on a decent pitch slightly further away, which means that we have to drive to it. It also means that we are linked to a number of football clubs, and a cricket team also operates there.
I am speaking of a social unit which has people from virtually every walk of life and every age taking part. There is mini-rugby going on, for under-7s to under-14s. We then have junior sides under 16 and occasionally under 18. The recruitment of players is very fluid. We also have people of every social environment and mix. I was once part of a front row which went from left to right: worker in a meat processing plant; welder; Member of the House of Lords. It is now: foreman in a meat processing plant; runner of a small engineering company; Member of the House of Lords. It is nice to know that I am the only one who is not upwardly socially mobile.
The mix is also exemplified by the fact that accountants, doctors and dentists have played in the side, together with people who work as labourers, casual workers of every description, people who are unemployed for periods. They can mix, as can people of various ages. That statement may elicit a resounding "So what?", until it is realised that people have: an opportunity to talk on even terms with people they would not normally talk to. Young people have a chance to meet on even terms people who are regarded as economically and possibly socially their superiors, with a subject in common that enables them to interact. There is a mix going on throughout the process that breaks down social barriers.

791
In addition, people come together in a common cause. Both the club houses required a funding effort and co-operation over everything from building the place to marking the pitches and coaching the younger sides. That sort of thing stops those on the outside feeling isolated and helps bring people together. Therefore, it is very important that it be given support.
This is probably the real meat of the debate: what do these organisations need in order to continue doing what they are doing, and doing well? The first thing we need, of course, is the continuation of players and interest. The Government's sports document talks very grandly about guaranteeing two hours' sports activity per week for children at school. I think that is a slight decline, if it is activity and not merely travelling to and from sports grounds. It may well be an improvement for some schools, but not for others.
The document then makes great play of making sure that new sports schools will be set up—I think 101 nation-wide. There is then mention of sports activity areas for people in deprived areas, suggesting that the activity of sport is a good thing because of the amount of self-discipline involved, and that it is good to get people to do something because they want to and not because they are forced. They have to be shown that there is something out there that they can do. The idea of having grammar schools for sport does not sit well with me. As an aside, I would add that selecting somebody to be a sportsman at the age of 14 is not very advisable in many sports for the average male.
How are we to support those who provide this important social service of giving the first taste of certain sports outside school? Rugby union is a good example and certainly cricket is another. The proper facilities are needed for both. I have no doubt that we shall hear much about that later. If we support clubs by making sure that schools provide a "sampling service" and then tell those concerned to go on to the clubs, we shall be doing ourselves a favour.
The document also talks about co-ordinators. I think that the figure is about 600, though I am not sure that that is nation-wide. At least some thinking is going on. There may not be enough money. I do not know how many times the sports budget could be swallowed up by the Millennium Dome costs.
We must try to make sure that clubs such as those I have described are given assistance, first by making people interested in them, and, secondly, by making sure that we do not take money out of them. I do not propose to go into this in any depth, but at present we are taxing many of our sporting institutions as if they were businesses. We are not giving them beneficial rates. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury will have something to say about that. Incidentally, Sudbury was at one point a fixture for my little club. It used to beat us handsomely, and then dropped us. My noble friend will speak about getting something akin to charitable status for sports clubs. I look forward to hearing about that in detail.
792
We must ensure that we allow people to work properly and that National Lottery funding is accessible to the clubs at the junior end. Steps have been taken already, but we must provide support and help by making the process simpler. We must also provide funds to sustain the clubs, not merely the buildings. If we are not to lose this great asset—the places where people learn about sports, support each other and are sometimes recruited to jobs—we must not extract too much from them. We must help them to set themselves up and run and we must not take from them.
Finally, how are we expecting to continue the educational and social developmental work unless we allow the clubs a free hand?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge: My Lords, I want to thank our most distinguished captain of the parliamentary rugby football team, who was very modest about his achievements. He has raised a most important subject tonight. It goes to the heart of sport in the UK.
Let us remind ourselves that for more than 100 years sport in this country has owed its development to the amateur clubs, the amateur administrator and the host of volunteers, former professionals at every level, schoolmasters, parents and grandparents like myself. We look to all of them to lend a hand. A host of sportsmen and women who love their game like nothing more than to give endless time and energy to serve their sport in an honorary capacity.
That amateur contribution has been fundamental to the speedy but sensible growth of each sport in this country. I am sure that as we travel around the country we are encouraged by the great army of volunteers— greater than ever before. There are as many ladies as there are men, and it is thrilling to see them all.
Last year, I travelled through Devon and Cornwall on holiday. I had to keep stopping at the small grounds with few facilities but many people. They had a buzz about them and they were surrounded by youngsters whose eyes they were opening. It was very exciting.
As one would expect, the contribution of professional coaches at the highest level has increased. In some respects, we have a great deal to do to catch up with other countries and their contribution is vital. Where would we be without the PE teachers? The increasing parlous state of sport in schools has somehow brought them on. The curriculum allows little time for sport, but the professionalism of the teachers I have seen has brought a ray of light into our sports starved schools. They take a great deal of pressure off the responsibility of headteachers and I take my hat off to them. The more PE teachers we can have the better.
Today, I want to make a plea on behalf of all the volunteers around school sport. I salute them for their dedication and enthusiasm. They are prepared to devote so much time in all weathers. We need to rally behind them and, more than that, to provide financial support. They are not looking to be paid for their

793
efforts, but the cost of providing footballs, cricket balls and so forth, and of oiling the wheels to make it all fun, is great. Over the years they have put their hands in their own pockets and those of their friends, but the cost is too big for that now. The cost is depressingly high.
I beg the Minister seriously to urge the departments dealing with sport and education to take on board the suggestion that local authorities must be given access to modest funds. We are not talking about enormous amounts of money. They would have the responsibility of providing the much-needed help where it was justified. Many small enterprises need such support and the financial help will be justified.
We talk about looking for investment in the grass roots. We often read and hear about the "grass roots" and must realise that the amateur clubs hold the key to them. At every amateur club there are volunteers, young and old, who have few facilities to assist them. Let us be clear that the amateur clubs in the UK will provide the gateway to the grass roots. The National Lottery money has created a great deal over the past few years. I received the notion with excitement because I believed that it could help just such a cause.
The money is doing a great deal of good, but is it doing it in the right places? And must we sit on such enormous resources of lottery money at the centre? It is causing despair and contempt among those volunteers who say, "We thought we were going to get something, but the government of the day are going to keep it for their own interest". That money is so badly needed to help the voluntary teachers to help the youngsters even more.
I have wonderful pictures in my mind and I am very bullish about sport in this country. We must grab this issue seriously. In my county of Kent all the sports clubs, the cricket clubs in particular, are building on the scenario. They are looking after the under-14s, the under-12s, the under-11s and the under-9s. That involvement can also be seen in tennis, rugby football, soccer and so forth. It is very exciting. I recently visited Suffolk; I was privileged to visit Bury St Edmunds, a lovely place. All they could talk to me about was sport and cricket and Ipswich Town. All their teams were being masterminded by volunteers and I went away very happy having heard about them.
I should like to paint a picture of one person I have come to know well. For a long time, he has been doing a job in Horsham, Sussex, and I mention him because his experience is mirrored across the country 100 times. He said, "Don't make a fuss of me over this. There are many marvellous people in the Midlands and the North and many ladies do the job every bit as well as I do." He is a GP and a good cricketer and rugby footballer. He loves sport and takes a great interest in youngsters. He created one of the first clubs teaching boys in the various age groups. I spoke and presented the prizes at an autumn dinner to celebrate the season. More than 200 young boys of varying ages attend with their parents and teachers. There are prizes for everyone and great enthusiasm. They all go away for the winter believing that sport is something different in life.
794
He has been working on such ventures since 1956— he is now in his mid-70s—and he is still as lively as ever. He has created in his wake many teachers who are doing the same. He visits them in other villages and says, "You have a lovely little ground or play area. Do this on it. We are not working to build the ego of Horsham Cricket Club; we are a springboard to get you all going." He is the most wonderful example to us in sport.
Therefore, if those at the highest level get depressed, each sporting body must fight through that. However, no country has a greater opportunity to benefit from such people's enthusiasm and the way in which they throw themselves into helping youngsters. Anything that the Minister can do through local authorities to give modest amounts to oil the wheels will help the whole show along.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in rising to speak, I declare my interest in this subject as chairman of the Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club and, as I shall be referring tonight to a cricket club, I should add that I am also president of Adlington Cricket Club.
Before I begin, I want to give an example of a sport in which perhaps not so many people participate. My story concerns Warrington Judo Club, which is very small. Its members modernised the premises and had a great opening. People came from many areas, including Olympic participants. However, having just opened the new clubhouse, they are suddenly threatened by a housing development and they may well have to leave. Fortunately, Warrington Borough Council is trying to find them alternative premises and is liaising with the developer to see whether the clubhouse can be moved to a new site. That is typical of the fight that small clubs face. There are no wealthy members in the club. By their own efforts, they built a new clubhouse only to find that, having opened it, it may be in danger of closure.
Having said that, I believe that we should also comment on some of the good things that have happened. For example, before the start of the debate I found out what had happened with regard to Sport England. Since it came into being, it has made 4,271 awards. Believe it or not, the awards have totalled £1,800 million. In addition, since January, 49 awards have been made totalling just over £14,300,000. Of those 49 awards, many have been big grants, some of them to professional clubs. Nevertheless, many have been awarded to the amateur clubs which we are discussing tonight. The 49 awards since January have gone to a variety of sports: many to cricket, many to rugby union, some to yachting, and boat clubs have benefited, too. However, I am sorry to tell the Minister that, unfortunately, not one rugby league club has benefited. Therefore, I believe that the distribution of the awards needs to be evened out.
I now turn to the lifeblood of amateur clubs—what makes them tick—and, in particular, I want to refer to amateur rugby league in Warrington. I shall tell your Lordships some of the names of the eight rugby league

795
clubs there. They are clubs such as Crosfields and Woolston, and clubs with more exotic names such as Grappenhall Griffins, Ryland Recs, Culcheth Eagles, Burtonwood Bulldogs, Bank Quay Bulls and Latchford Albion. The main point about those clubs is that their members are all amateurs. Some play at a high level—for example, Woolston and Crosfields both play in the National Conference—and all the others play in the North-West Counties League. Therefore, they play amateur rugby league at a good level.
I return to comments made earlier with regard to schools. The apprentices from Warrington Wolves visit schools and, importantly, attract youngsters to amateur clubs in the area. In that way, all the amateur clubs benefit and that is very important for them. As noble Lords said, it is not simply a matter of older people who play at the clubs passing on their knowledge; it is a case of youngsters joining at all levels. Indeed, because Crosfields and Woolston are in the National Conference, they must provide teams at every age from nine to 18. That means that a large number of youngsters take part.
All the other amateur clubs also have junior clubs: some have two and some have three. The young coaches direct the players and, after six weeks, a tag rugby competition takes place with the local amateur club in the area. Therefore, everyone becomes involved in preserving the lifeblood of rugby league. Admittedly, that is taking place in the heartlands, but it has now spread to be a national sport, particularly on the amateur side. Certainly, I believe that what is taking place there is right for the future of the sport.
I turn now to say a little about cricket and, in particular, the Adlington club. I stand to be corrected by more eminent people than myself, but I do not believe that county cricket can continue to draw many of its players from the narrow band of mainly public or grammar school pupils. The band must be far wider than that. If it were not for the presence of league and cricket clubs together, there would no sign of youngsters joining the sport. We all know that many schools do not have the facilities or the playing fields. Certainly cricket is no different from any other sport; it takes up a lot of time which teachers do not have. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that sport in the curriculum is very limited and difficult to organise.
Adlington, admittedly, has one professional player who has played county cricket, but all the work, such as running the bar and preparing the wicket, is carried out by club members. Adlington also has teams of under-11s, under-13s, under-15s and under-18s. Each club in the Bolton Association has the same number of junior teams, and leagues are provided for them by the association. The Bolton League is similarly run; indeed, it is said that on any Saturday afternoon more cricket is probably played in the area of Bolton than anywhere else.
796
I turn from that to speak for a moment about the county club. Lancashire has benefited by dividing the area into the north-west, the north-east, the southwest and the south-east. The club is looking for under-16s and under-19s to play against each other. That could not be done without club and league cricket in that area, which provides future talent for Lancashire. It is trying to make cricket a broader-based game. I believe that that is absolutely essential if we are to benefit.
Having said that, and having spoken mainly about rugby league and cricket, I return to what was said about attracting youngsters to the sport. That provides a way of instilling social cohesion in villages and urban areas. It brings people together because they have one objective. They believe in their club and they believe in the keen games that are played. I believe that that does an awful lot of good. If many of the youngsters, not only in urban areas but in villages, were not in cricket, football, rugby league or rugby union teams, they would find that they had an awful lot of time on their hands. They would not be spending it in the healthy way that we have described this evening or a way that benefits them and brings together social cohesion. Therefore, I say that more help must be given to the amateur clubs. We need to do that. One way forward may be to waive council tax for all amateur clubs; indeed, probably something could be given from the centre to compensate the local authorities for that. More use must be made of giving grants to smaller clubs.
However, one matter of which I am sure—I shall finish on this point because my time is up—is that amateur clubs are the lifeblood of sport. Also, they make for a better and a healthier nation.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, like all noble Lords in the House tonight, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising the subject and giving us a chance to speak about sport. I was delighted to hear about his rugby club. I thought that perhaps the next time that England are due to play at Murrayfield he might send his team instead.
We are united with regard to the importance of the amateur and volunteer in sport. Speaking from my own experience of marking out the ground, rolling the pitch, being a club official, being a president of a governing body and Minister for Sport, one has seen it from all sides of the argument. It is a mounting mountain of frustration. This has not suddenly happened but evolved over years of frustration at the administrative complication of sport and the complication of sporting finance. I think that the countless volunteers are getting thoroughly fed up and are almost in despair regarding the time it takes to obtain grants. The noble Lord spoke rightly about the number of grants that have been given out by the Lottery Commission to the Sports Council, but perhaps he should have put in brackets how long they took to come through. That is where I think people are reaching the end of their tether.

797
We are right tonight to highlight the contribution of volunteers and pay them every possible tribute. I think that some of these grass root volunteers—so well spoken about by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey— should appear in the Honours' List rather than those fleeting experts who play once or twice for club or country, get an MBE and then disappear.
For example, as to time, on Sunday I was asked to re-open two tennis courts near my home. They were reconditioned tennis courts, so planning permission was unnecessary. All that was needed was a grant to resurface them and repair the fences. It had taken over three years to get through the Sports Council, the local authorities and other bodies for a grant, three years of volunteers' hard work to resurface two tennis courts, which took the contractors only two days. We must try to speed up the action by the various bodies that are involved in sport. We thank the volunteers, the CCPR and others which represent the governing bodies for the time they give to sport. We must recognise them and give them all the praise we can.
The Minister for Sport and her department should tell the Sports Council and the local authorities that they need to simplify the red tape that is holding up the development of sport in this country. I know that the Minister will say that he is accountable for the financial expenditure. If industry took the same amount of time to take decisions as sport does, Heaven help the country's economic future. Of course government occasionally give a bad example, like the Wembley fiasco, and the Minister knows my strong objections to the way he changed the lottery so that less money went to sport and other money went to good causes, which I think was inappropriate. We need to synchronise how we can improve matters. I believe that our local sports clubs, and therefore our communities and community centres, must work in very close co-operation with our schools. Then I believe there is a way forward for development.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, says, we put a great deal of responsibility on the PE teachers. Mainly they are in the secondary schools. We are woefully short of PE teachers in primary schools. We must try to improve that as soon as we can. I acknowledge that we also have to improve what has been improved—the dual use of school facilities by schools and the community; for example, swimming pools, gymnasia, squash courts and so on. I know there are always problems with janitors and who is responsible for damage to the school in the evening and so on. None of this is insurmountable. We have to work at it as hard as we can.
It is from the schools that the sports club will recruit. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, through mini-rugby and other ways we have to involve the sports clubs and the schools working together to develop sport in the area. There is no doubt at all in my mind that competition in sport and team games does an immense amount to develop character in young people. That is what is so important in improving the whole environment of a community. Sport is necessary to develop character, to develop leadership, to understand and not to question the decision of the
798
referees, the umpires and to develop good sportsmanship, and, where possible, to help where we can with outward bound activities. We have to push youngsters to the limit, not to the extent of being foolhardy, but as far as we can to ensure that they can see what can be achieved if they really put their minds to it. We have to work at that. Stemming from that, we will see youngsters coming into the sports clubs to play all the games that we have been talking about tonight.
The schools have to bring the sports clubs into the schools. If we do not have PE teachers, let us bring a coach from the rugby club, the cricket club or the hockey club to help with sports education outside, to look after school matches, and to attend away matches. Inter-school competition is extremely important. If you have a good school team doing well in inter-school matches, that will raise the morale of the whole community. I think we must bring the sport clubs to the schools. As children leave school and carry on in their late teens and into their 20s they will continue to join the clubs that mean so much to us at the present time.
At all times, as I think my noble friend Lord Cowdrey touched on, we must make sure that sport is enjoyable and fun, otherwise we shall lose the children from day one. They must want to come back and keep coming back. That will develop their experience and their skills right on into later life.
There are many matters that one should like to touch on tonight, but one cannot in a few minutes. Certainly I believe that the country is taking the drugs issue seriously, but I think that nationally and internationally we are letting down the sports world by not having a strong drugs policy throughout the world. Whenever anybody is tested positive for drugs, everyone seems to try to find an excuse for that. We have to introduce tough measures in order to prevent drug-taking in sport.
I should like to talk about disabled sports. I have been to the Special Olympics and have seen what can be achieved by supporting those who are less fortunate. It has been very interesting listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, about rugby league. For the first 70 years of my life, as a rugby union enthusiast I was not really allowed to speak to anyone in rugby league. Even when I was a Scottish selector, if one of the candidates had been on the telephone to Leeds or Wigan, he would be out for good. Now the league cup final is to be at Murrayfield in a fortnight's time. It shows how time and attitudes change. I welcome it. We have to keep working on that as much as we possibly can. Tonight is not the night to talk about our new UK sports institutions and so on or about developing high-quality athletes for the Olympics.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we all have tremendous hopes for Great Britain in the Olympics. Medals will count but the base of the pyramid must be right. That is what we are talking about tonight—the base of the pyramid. If a youngster is outstanding, the facilities and the finance must be in place to take him forward to Olympic and world-class sport. I fear that if we do not make decisions quickly and if we continue

799
to dally year after year on crucial decisions, it will take much longer than I should like. However, I hope that we can reverse some of these slow decisions in the near future.
9 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Addington for introducing this debate and for doing so with great awareness of the importance of the social contacts that are made at a typical amateur sports club.
One can safely say that sport reaches the parts that others do not reach. There is no doubt at all that in an increasingly divided society, the role of the community amateur sports club is quite indispensable.
I do not often recommend government reports, but I do not know how many noble Lords have a copy of the Home Office document called Report of the Policy Action Team on Community Self-Help. That is one of the 18 PATs that were set up by the Government when they were returned in 1997 to try to grapple with the extremely intractable bundle of problems that we call social exclusion.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read one paragraph of the report because it is totally germane to what we are talking about this evening. It is in a chapter entitled,
"the philosophy of community self-help".
It states:
"But self-help is an end in itself, as well as a means to an end. It is at the core of the empowerment of communities … It is about involvement and consultation, but also about moving towards self-sufficiency. It is, in its purest form, about communities shaping their own destiny—doing, not being done to … So it can reasonably be said that community self-help, the subject matter of our Policy Action Team, underpins that of all the other seventeen. Without effective self-help, it is unlikely that any other measures of community regeneration, however well resourced, will provide long term solutions to long term problems".
That just about says it all. It explains why this debate is so crucial and why I suspect that in this House we all agree that there are steps which the Government could and should take to deliver their own analysis.
Although I admire the report, there is only one mention in it that I can find of an amateur sports club. That is reference to a tiny little football team, which I believe is called the Lambeth Tigers Football Club— God bless it—which, like many tens of thousands of football clubs, provides that which no other agency can provide. The key to this is that they say that they are doing it for themselves and not having it done unto them.
Another report which I believe was published last week is from the Government Office for the East of England and is entitled Draft Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia. In the chapter on tourism, sport and recreation, it states:
"In providing facilities every effort should be made to minimise the need to travel and make the most effective use of existing resources, for example through enhancing facilities in village halls and the community use of schools facilities".
800
Again, that is admirable stuff but there is no reference in the entire chapter to amateur sports clubs.
One message which should go out from this House this evening is that amateur sports clubs are not just there; they are there in their tens of thousands. They cross class divides; they cross occupation divides; they cross age divides. It is not necessary for someone to create them, if that could be done. They are there.
Therefore, I hope that we shall all support the notion not that money is showered on amateur sports clubs from on high, with all the bureaucracy and complications to which other noble Lords have referred, but that the Government should not just consider but get on with encouraging citizens to give to their own sports clubs; to unlock that continuing self-sustaining resource of member subscriptions and grants which will, I believe, make a substantial difference to the facilities which clubs can provide and, in particular, the extent to which small amateur sports clubs can reach out to local schools where, as we all know, the level and quantity of sports provision, particularly team sports, has been sadly declining and declining badly.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for repeating what I have suggested in previous debates. But it is an important matter and, since the last debate, a great deal of energy has been put into the notion of obtaining tax exemptions for gifts to community amateur sports clubs which are akin to those available to charities.
I shall not bore your Lordships with an exposition as to why community amateur sports clubs are not already charities. That is for another day. But suffice to say that the CCPR, Sport England, the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union and virtually every sports association with which we have been in contact support the notion that tax exemptions should be made available to community amateur sports clubs as though they were charities.
The benefits which would flow from that would be, without question, substantial. It would mean that giving would come out of the gross income of the giver and enable the sports club concerned to recover tax at standard rate. It would have the advantage of the extra allowances announced by the Chancellor in the last Budget, and they are substantial. It would mean that people could leave money in their wills with no inheritance tax payable. It would mean that they could give assets and snares without them being taxed. It would mean that the clubs could avoid the penalisation to which my noble friend Lord Addington referred; namely, taxation of their measly interest and dividend income, if they have any.
The problem of confining those exemptions to a class of amateur sports clubs that would keep out undeserving cases is one which has been grappled with in detail. There is now a working definition which is supported by all those bodies which I mentioned, including the National Playing Fields Association. It is felt that it would be a workable, practical definition.

801
I conclude with a quick reference to the proposal's virtues. The beauty of it is that it requires no administration by government. It will not get caught up in government. It will have no cost to government. I see the Minister is pursing his lips, but that is true. The only cost to government will be the exemption itself. Since the exemption will be only one-third to one-quarter of the amount given by the citizens themselves, I put it to the Government that that is about the best conceivable value that they could get. There will be no administration costs save in respect of the Inland Revenue which would police it. I have had an extremely useful and constructive discussion with the Inland Revenue on those issues and it will be possible to cope with them.
We have a keen, committed Minister for Sport. We have support from all the relevant bodies. There is a crying need. The patience of this House is legendary but it is reaching the end of its course. We need to make as much noise as noble Lords can. I hope that the Minister in summing up will say that he, too, will make a noise, because this is a reformation which is "win, win, win".
9.7 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with some humility I rise in my usual position as tail-end Charlie. Your Lordships may hear in the course of one or two of my remarks how I deserve that position in a sporting debate such as tonight's. I start by declaring an interest, first, as the honorary patron of the Scottish Jujitsu Association. When I was installed in that esteemed position—I have not as yet had an opportunity to put it in the declaration of interests—I was given—dare I say it?— a sexy pair of pyjama-like garments and an honorary black belt that excited my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
Secondly, I am honorary patron of Forfar Athletic Football Club; thirdly, I am a fan of a well-known premier league club well known to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. As a real sporting enthusiast in your Lordships' House, it is a wonderful privilege to hear a real sportsman at all levels who practises and who has done so much, both in your Lordships' House and clearly still does in his community: the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
I remember seeing my noble friend Lord Cowdrey play cricket all of 45 years ago—in the flesh, as well as elsewhere. It is typical of him that he continues to put in vast amounts of his time and talent, not just in your Lordships' House but in the way in which he has described. We are extremely lucky to have him here and I suspect that his county is extremely lucky to have him in all types of sport.
Looking at the Speakers' List brought me back to early morning when I quite often put on the radio and hear of the marvellous teams to which my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm referred in rugby league. We hear about "the Rhinos" and "the Bulls", but when I heard of the "Warrington Wolves" I am afraid that I did not immediately think of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that cuddly colleague of mine across the way.
802
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, was right on the button when he mentioned league cricket. I seem to recall, probably about 40 years ago—perhaps less—a young West Indian cricketer by the name of Rohan Kanhai, whom I believe was playing as a professional for Aberdeenshire in the Scottish counties league. My noble friend Lord Cowdrey and certainly my noble friend Lord Monro will know that Scottish cricket tends to be in need of mittens and earmuffs, certainly until midsummer, although clearly in Langholm my noble friend is slightly warmer, south of the hills. I can tell him that in our neck of the woods frostbite will catch you in April, certainly in Lochside park. It just goes to show that league cricket in Scotland and England is alive and well and can be the bedrock for wonderful stars and world stars at their particular sport.
My final declaration of an interest in amateur sport is that for four years I was captain of the Lords and Commons ski club. One cannot find anything more amateur than that. In my youth I was told I was too small for football and rugby. At cricket I was told that I was far too useless. That was out of 500 boys at Eton. I was told to take up scoring. At least that put me on the right path to become a chartered accountant. I am delighted that at least one had some knowledge of that.
Skiing has done wonders for me, quite apart from putting me in the orthopaedic ward. Many of my noble and honourable friends are no strangers to the orthopaedic ward. I believe that I have paid five visits to hospital. Before my noble friend Lord Cowdrey beams too much, I know that the husband of one of his sister-in-laws has paid six visits to the Davos hospital. This year, I believe that the right honourable Member for Devizes actually ran into his own daughter. That is amateur skiing. Both of them finished up in the same ambulance and in adjacent wards in Davos hospital. That just goes to show that amateur sport goes right throughout Parliament and indeed, across the water and perhaps, as far as we know, across the world.
Certainly, skiing and other sports have—not to put too fine a point on it—enriched my life. They have made friends for me throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world. Where else would an electioneering Conservative Peer find pints of lager not poured over him but given to him? I discussed football with a bunch of pensioners in a working men's club and we all agreed that we could do a considerably better job than some of the most select professional players. That aspect of friendship is important. If sport has done so much for me, let alone for my noble friend Lord Cowdrey and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and indeed for my noble friend Lord Monro, who has given a considerable amount of his time and talent as Minister for Sport and for the Scottish Rugby Union, what can it do for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of small, and perhaps larger, boys and girls throughout this land?
At whatever standard they pitch in, I am reminded of the late Marquess of Exeter. In 1980 in a debate about the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games; the noble Marquess said that sport is not about the Olympics—he had won a gold medal in, I think,

803
1924—but about small boys and girls. I thought of myself staggering around Kensington Gardens getting fit for the Lords and Commons skiing. It is for all of us.
If that friendship has helped me and so many noble Lords, what can it do for all the boys and girls who, first, have pleasure in sport and, secondly, show some aptitude for sport. If they have aptitude, as my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, recommended—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle suggested amateur rugby league in Warrington, the heartland of rugby league—that aptitude will go towards talent. With hard, and harder, work on that talent it seems that a new lifestyle can emerge.
I suspect that the players of, say, Warrington Wolves, work one hundred times harder than any of us amateur sportsmen. They receive enormous professional help. However, I believe that none of that can start unless there is good groundwork in schools, and unless there are facilities in clubs, in gymnasiums and, as in my home town of Kirriemuir, in swimming pools. With the right facilities the mothers and fathers, together with occasional professional help, can encourage boys and girls and see that they start in the right way. All that depends on Government, whether local or central, having some input, be it large or small.
I know that we shall receive some encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising the debate.
I conclude by saying that I have just returned from a visit to the Royal Air Force establishment at Innsworth where we had a lengthy discussion with the Royal Air Force medical services. The experts in that branch of the services were particularly keen to see that PT instructors had more and more training in sports injuries, not just because the boys and girls who are joining the services are so unfit, but because we ask more and more of them. The more sport that boys and girls can play before they join the services, let alone when they are serving, the more it will help to keep them fit. That aspect of sports injuries is particularly relevant to men and women of the services today. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has to say on these wicked cracks. In fact, at about six o'clock on Saturday I did pass by the Old Swan of Liverpool, basking in a blue glow. Like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not just for initiating the debate, but also for being such a wonderful example of a sportsman.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I would not dream of making any further jokes about Everton Football Club. The last time I did so, I received what can only be described as a threatening letter from an Everton supporter. I am steering well clear of that.
I welcome the noble Lord's comment about swimming and swimming clubs. I have a great nephew who swims for Fleetwood Swimming Club. When I
804
went to watch him I was amazed by the amount of voluntary work that goes on in swimming. I was impressed to see how youngsters get involved in local swimming galas through to national competitions.
The pleasure in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell is that one finds out something new about him every time he speaks. I knew that he skied in an Everton shirt, but now the thought of him going to bed in jujitsu pyjamas adds something else.
One regret I have is the reduction in the number of all-round sportsmen. Specialisation at an early age has removed the all-rounder from the scene, but, thank goodness, not from the House of Lords. At 8.15 p.m. the Minister addressed the House as economics, indeed, Treasury Minister and 90 minutes later, after a quick shower and a change of strip, here he is about to address us as the sports Minister.
I always consider the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as the C.B. Fry of the House. At least in this debate he has heard practical ideas. Whether he is wearing his sports hat or his Treasury hat, I hope that he will not approach the matter with a closed mind. The suggestions of cutting red tape, securing extra funding and encouraging greater co-operation between schools and clubs are all worthy of merit.
This debate has rightly emphasised the importance of the amateur clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, laid great emphasis on that. I still get a thrill when I look at the team sheet and see myself listed with Colin Cowdrey. I again pay tribute to the national work he does in promoting sport. Ministers might well listen to his call for a better distribution of lottery funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, paid tribute to non-fashionable sports like judo. Boxing clubs, again not always a fashionable sport to defend, often sited in deprived city areas, can do a lot for social inclusion and deserve to be complimented. As I mentioned, I feel the noble Lord, Lord Monro, was right to talk of the cutting of red tape. We know that we have to look after public money. But these clubs are being run, not only by amateur players, but also by amateur administrators, and too much bureaucracy can clog up the system.
The noble Lord was also right about giving emphasis to the base of the pyramid. I like the idea of our winning medals and competitions. But we look back to the perversion of sport that took place in certain regimes like East Germany, and we can see that the pursuit of elitism and the idea of the result being everything is wrong. It is at the base of the pyramid that we want the emphasis.
My noble friend Lord Phillips returned to the question of tax concessions. Whether we are talking of tax concessions or charitable status, I believe that where there is a will there is a way. Perhaps in his dual capacity the Minister should look at that. It is a way of getting money to the amateur sports clubs with the minimum of bureaucracy. I know that the National Playing Fields Association supports the idea, although it feels also that if tax concessions or charitable status

805
are granted to clubs there should be some safeguard for club assets, not least the playing field if the club is ever wound up.
I have mentioned most of the speeches. Let me make one anticipatory comment. This has been a little bit of a boy's night out. But it is important to emphasise that sport is not only for boys; it is also for girls. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will remind us of that when she speaks. As my noble friend Lord Addington said in opening, it is the social and friendship aspects of amateur sport that are so important—promoting active citizenship, encouraging young people away from crime, promoting health, and promoting social inclusion. Those are benefits we have all come across in our time.
Just to prove to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that it is not only Warrington that has exotic names, my first sports club was Thornton Phoenix. We played on school playing fields, on park pitches and on King George V pitches. It was a tremendous experience. I can still remember the first time we were changing in a tin hut and there came a knock on the door. We opened the door and were faced with three little boys wanting autographs. Never were three little boys given autographs so quickly; it was quite an experience.
I make the point also that it is not just a matter of school and amateur sports clubs. I want to see the professional clubs involved. I pay tribute to two clubs near where I live now, occupying the same ground. The first is Watford Football Club and the other Saracens Rugby Club. Both have imaginative schemes in the local community, bringing the children to see how the club works, meeting the players and helping with training. That could be emulated and encouraged.
A Sporting Future for All has been mentioned. That reflects the Minister's practical approach. I leave the Minister with two points tonight. The White Paper commits the Government to stem the sale of sports fields. When I referred to an article in the Daily Mail in January, the Minister rather imperiously slapped me down and said that the Government had the matter in hand. However, the Observer of 13th February bears a headline,
"Scandal of playing fields that Labour didn't save".
I am sure that the Minister has all the statistics to hand but there is still a suspicion abroad, and much empirical evidence, that the sale of sports fields is continuing. The Government will not be judged on their slogans but on people's experiences at the "sharp end". The Government will be found out if they do not defend sports fields.
Many suggestions have been made with regard to financing. Sport is one of the great driving forces of successful television, but sport makes for good television and not vice versa. I do not care whether Ministers do this by means of tax, levies or voluntary schemes but they must shake down to the grass roots some of the enormous sums of money that televised sport receives. It is not right that that money should be enjoyed only at the top level of sport. We seek initiatives from Ministers to shake clown this money
806
from television to the grass roots to sustain sport. I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating the debate. I declare an interest as a member of Woking Golf Club and of the Chris Lane Club. I cannot say that I share the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of wallowing in mud as part of a rugby scrum but I regret to say that on occasions I have certainly wallowed in mud when I have driven a golf ball offline. Last weekend I watched professionals do that at Sunningdale.
Sport matters. Those are the opening words of the Conservative Party's paper on sport that was published in February this year. Just two weeks ago the Government finally published their long awaited sports strategy. I note that they kick off with exactly the same words. As imitation is the best form of flattery, who am I—it is the most sincere form of flattery, as the Minister says—to complain? As the Government appear to have incorporated some of our good ideas in their strategy, we must be on a winning side at the moment.
As many noble Lords have said tonight, sport is vitally important to the physical and mental health of the nation, as well as being, of course, a multi-billion pound industry. At its best sport is exciting, passionate and hugely enjoyable. If anyone ever doubted that, they need listen only to my noble friend Lord Lyell to realise what enthusiasm for sport can inspire. Indeed, someone who makes a 700-mile return trip to watch Everton deserves congratulations from someone, even from an Arsenal supporter such as myself!
In short, sport can help to improve our whole quality of life. A testament to the huge popularity of sport is the massive and invaluable contribution that amateur clubs and their volunteers make in this field. My noble friend Lord Cowdrey was right to draw attention to the importance of the contribution made by volunteers to school sports. As he said, that is the gateway to the grass roots of sport.
Community spirit and national identity are fostered through sport. For the individual it offers a sense of personal accomplishment; it has health-related benefits; it teaches people how to win and lose with equanimity—although I am not too sure when I have taken part in sport that I have lost always with equanimity, but I keep trying—and it can improve cognitive skills such as literacy and numeracy.
For society as a whole, sport can help to reduce the level of crime; it can help to channel aggression; and it can play a vital role in dismantling social and ethnic barriers. We should work to ensure that no one is excluded from enjoying sport on the grounds of disability, race, background or gender.
When I met representatives of the Women's Sports Foundation yesterday, I was impressed by the work that they are doing to improve and promote opportunities for women and girls in and through

807
sport at every level. The Conservative Party welcomes the foundation's national action plan, which has recently been published, and wholeheartedly endorses it.
It is also crucial that members of ethnic minorities are not excluded from playing, organising, refereeing or watching sport at any level as a result of racism.
It is important that governments should recognise the immense and positive contribution which sport brings to our communities across the country, ensuring that the requirements of sport are properly taken into account across the whole spectrum of policy and in funding decisions.
It is also important to recognise that sometimes the best thing that governments can do is simply to leave amateur sports clubs to get on with their own lives, with as little regulation and interference as possible. Governments should avoid taking measures that unfairly or unnecessarily impede the development of amateur sports clubs.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, it is important that sports structures in the United Kingdom should be as simple, co-ordinated and well-understood as possible. Yet, at the same time, we must recognise that there is merit in the very diversity of our amateur clubs. We should welcome their vibrancy and their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. If too much bureaucracy is imposed on them, it simply stifles that enthusiasm and individuality. My noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm was right to draw attention to the need to simplify the red tape that entangles sports bodies, especially when they come to apply for funds.
I, too, pay tribute to the army of parents and young people who already give up huge amounts of their spare time to organise sport for others and, of course, to play in it themselves.
The Conservative Party believes that it is vital that we should use the tax system to help and support the amateur sector and its volunteers. Genuinely amateur clubs—others say that there is an acceptable definition of such clubs which encompasses those which do not pay players appearance money, have open membership rules and spend surplus money on their own activities—should perhaps enjoy charitable status or other concessions which will make it possible for them to thrive. Certainly charitable status would encourage people to give more to charity; people could see their money going directly to help their local sports organisation.
I pay tribute to the work carried out patiently behind the scenes during the past year or so by Sport England to push this whole debate forward. It submitted a comprehensive response to the Charity Commission's review of the Recreational Charities Act 1958. It has held talks with a wide range of those in the political world, including the Conservative culture, media and sport team.
Last October my honourable friend Richard Spring asked a series of Written Questions in another place about charitable status and voluntary sports clubs. I
808
shall not go into the response given by the Minister for Sport in another place, but certainly I am aware that many discussions have taken place since that occasion and that all are hopeful that some progress has been made. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress in practical terms the Government have been able to achieve.
I should like to raise one further matter—it has been touched upon in general by one or two noble Lords— which was brought to my attention by the Nationwide Conference, and I thank it for its, as usual, helpful briefing. It concerns the issue of the diminishing availability of sports fields that are adequate for amateur sports clubs, in particular our junior and youth football clubs. I am not complaining about the falling number of playing fields. I am looking here at the availability for use by amateur clubs of existing sports facilities.
Many schools no longer hire their facilities or make them available to local youth teams on Sunday mornings for a variety of what to the schools are good reasons. They may not have a caretaker available or willing to be on duty in the morning. I am advised that that problem has become increasingly bad in the south of England where clubs are in demise having been unable to find adequate facilities or the local pitch hire is too expensive. It now costs as much as £60 to £70 per match to hire a pitch in places such as Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and those with adequate changing facilities, such as dressing rooms and showers, are even more expensive. One may pay £60 to £70 per match just for a field—without any facilities.
Junior clubs simply cannot fund the escalating cost of facilities, which is reducing the number of teams in competitions, particularly in the youth age group 16 to 18 and amateur Saturday/Sunday morning teams. What measures do the Government believe could be adopted to address this problem?
We on these Benches recognise the importance of the role of amateur sports clubs and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the concerns raised by all noble Lords. It is important that we resolve them—for sport matters.
9.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for triggering a wide-ranging and stimulating debate. Those who are familiar with my lack of sporting prowess will be amazed to learn that I have an interest to declare. I am the father of the secretary of the Black Rose of Highgate Cricket Club—the Black Rose of Highgate, I hasten to say, being a free house on the Archway Road in Highgate. But it is a quite respectable club.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go over in any great detail the issue of sport in schools. We debated it a few weeks ago and it is the second of the three legs of the sports strategy which we published two weeks ago. Before I go on to the issue of amateur clubs, I want to echo the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, to all those adults who take part in

809
helping school sports on a voluntary basis. They do a marvellous job. As the noble Lord rightly said, they do it without pay and sometimes even at their own expense and very often with inadequate thanks or recognition.
Before I leave the issue of school sports, I want to respond to what the noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey and Lord Monro, said about the interrelationship between adult sports and schools. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke about co-operation between the outside world and schools. We have the World Class Performance Programme, which is helping élite performers. One of the conditions of the programme is that they should volunteer to carry out a minimum number of school visits every year as part of an ongoing development plan to raise the aspirations of young people in sport and in life.
More than that, Sport England is setting up 600 school sports co-ordinators to organise coaching, after-school activities and inter-school competitions. Kate Hoey, the Sports Minister, announced last week the first areas to benefit from this £60 million Lottery programme. The co-ordinators will work with schools and local authorities to give children more opportunities to take part in after-school activities. That includes organising inter-school competitions in the major sports and other activities such as coaching sessions, training, sports days, swimming lessons, fitness courses and outdoor pursuits. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, who expressed concern about these matters.
It has properly been a theme of the debate that there are enormous social and health benefits to be gained from sport, particularly amateur sport. Millions of people watch and take part in sport. It is such a topic of conversation that I have just been handed the score for the match between Manchester United and Real Madrid. It is 3:2 to Manchester, with one minute to go. Indeed, the match is probably over now.
The Government are determined to ensure equality of opportunity for all in every area, including sport. We shall continue to take steps to remove obstacles that prevent people making the most of their abilities. Our policy of sport for all is aimed at encouraging everyone into sport. The degree to which physical activity makes a contribution to health is well-known. It can bring about a reduction in coronary heart disease, strokes, hypertension, osteoporosis, colon cancer and obesity, and it can improve mental health.
We want to see more people from all parts of society taking part in sport and active recreation. In particular, we want to see more participation by those groups who are less likely to be involved at present: the elderly, women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to women in sport and to ethnic minorities. I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. Applications to lottery sports funds are required to demonstrate ways of encouraging the participation of women when applying for funding. As regards ethnic minorities, on 21st March Kate Hoey launched a new charter designed to end racism in sport, drawn up by
810
Sporting Equals, a partnership project set up by Sport England and the Commission for Racial Equality and backed by national governing bodies.
Sport offers tremendous opportunities to participants. It is a powerful tool in shaping attitudes and behaviour. If we want a fitter, healthier population, demonstrating qualities such as co-operation, responsibility, self-discipline and determination, we need to encourage the widest range of sporting activity, in particular at an amateur level.
But of course, government do not run sport. Sport belongs to the millions of people who play, officiate, organise and support it. That is the way it should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, recognised that point. It is a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because of the enthusiasm and commitment of the people who run sport, many of whom have spoken in this debate; it gives protection to the values of fun, friendship and fair play which underpin the role that sport plays. But it is a weakness because it means that the organisation of sport is fragmented. It is run by hundreds of organisations, many of them highly professional, but some relying entirely on poorly supported volunteers with very limited resources.
There is a clear role for government to provide opportunities and encouragement for as many people as possible to take part in sport, to offer leadership to the sector in order to help the many bodies which agree to contribute to common aims and a split of responsibilities, to ensure that we maximise the contribution that sport makes to people's broader priorities such as better health and education and pride in our nation. I am happy to add to what we can do the aim of cutting red tape, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and a number of other speakers. A Sporting Future for All spells out the Government's vision for sport and our commitment to achieving that.
Before I leave that point, I ought to say a word about funding. It was referred to first by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, who repeated the claim that I have heard him make before that there is less money for sport now than in the past. That is simply not the case. The Exchequer funding is well known: it is £34 million for Sport England and £13 million for UK Sport. It is the first increase in Exchequer funding for many years.
In addition, lottery funding through Sport England this year and next is in a range between £470 million and £590 million; and funding from the New Opportunities Fund includes £80 million for out-of-school learning and £125 million for open spaces. Both of those include provision for sport. Within that global figure community amateur sport is ring-fenced. Sport England states that 75 per cent of its expenditure will be devoted to community sport. There is also specific emphasis in the White Paper on grass roots funding, which was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Hoyle.
What does the strategy mean for amateur clubs? It means giving a lead to key players in delivering sporting opportunity and excellence. We recognise the importance of a wide provision of facilities, and we need to improve information as to what is available. In

811
particular, we see strong potential in the thousands of sports clubs in this country. Schools and clubs must be the first step on a clear pathway to higher levels of competition for those with ability and a desire to progress.
A number of noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Hoyle and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in referring to their own amateur sports clubs, put flesh on the description in the White Paper of hub and satellite clubs. The vast range of activities that they undertake is a good exemplar of what we mean by hub and satellite clubs and how they can help each other.
As to charitable status for sports organisations, I acknowledge the role which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in particular has played in the work being undertaken by the department together with Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association to devise a particular form of tax relief to help sports bodies in their role in the community. The Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey, is made very well aware of this every time she visits community clubs across the country. For that reason, the matter is being considered actively by the department and will be discussed with the Treasury, although I cannot say what the outcome will be.
We have also discussed with the Charity Commission the question of sports clubs seeking charitable status, but that can be a very difficult process. The Charity Commission is reviewing the register of charities. Last year the commission issued a consultation paper on the Recreational Charities Act 1958. There are concerns about how the term "social welfare" in that Act is interpreted and junior sections of clubs can become charitable concerns. The Charity Commission will consult on charity law and sport later this year but obviously will not itself change the
812
existing law. I note what my noble friend Lord Hoyle says about rate relief for sports clubs. This is primarily a matter for local authorities themselves, although I note my noble friend's point that any rate relief that they give should be made up from central funds.
Very little reference was made to playing fields. Therefore, I believe that I can rely on the response that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, last time. First, In 1998–99 there were 800 applications for the change of use of sports fields, only six of which were granted against the advice of Sport England. Secondly, although disposals still take place—we do not advocate a complete halt which would freeze playing field provision in this country in an undesirable way—the number has reduced from 40 to six a month. If the noble Lord is concerned about what he describes as "a suspicion abroad", I hope he will reassure those who voice it that we are keeping to our manifesto commitment.
In view of the time, perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness about the issue of access to school playing fields by junior clubs.
As to drugs, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, the Positive Futures initiative was launched on 27th March. The particular aim of Sport England, the Youth Justice Board and the UK Anti-Drugs Coordination Unit is to help vulnerable 10 to 16 year-olds, and in the first year the cost, spread over 24 projects, will be about £950,000.
I have reached the end of my allocated time. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and all who have taken part in this debate. Our document, A Sporting Future for All, covers three key areas: sport in schools, lifelong participation, and sporting excellence. We have had the opportunity to debate sport in schools. I am very pleased that we have had this opportunity to debate lifelong participation.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  Chechnya: Tuberculosis
  Chechnya: Tuberculosis
  CDC: Forward Plans
  CDC: Forward Plans
  Zimbabwe: Resettlement Funding
  Zimbabwe: Resettlement Funding
  Scandinavian Countries: Development Assistance
  Scandinavian Countries: Development Assistance
  BSE/New-variant CJD
  BSE/New-variant CJD
  European Union Committee: Washington Visit
  European Union Committee: Washington Visit
  Elderly Patients: Abuse
  Elderly Patients: Abuse
  Stunning and Pithing
  Stunning and Pithing
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  DETR Consultation Document, High Hedges: Possible Solutions
  DETR Consultation Document, High Hedges: Possible Solutions
  EU Budget: UK Contribution
  EU Budget: UK Contribution
  Post Office Closures
  Post Office Closures
  Government Departments: External Consultancy Costs
  Government Departments: External Consultancy Costs
  Northern Ireland: Air Passenger Duty
  Northern Ireland: Air Passenger Duty
  Act of Union Bicentenary: Post Office Decision on Stamp Issue
  Act of Union Bicentenary: Post Office Decision on Stamp Issue
  Market Research: Confidentiality
  Market Research: Confidentiality
  Local Authorities: Library Plans
  Local Authorities: Library Plans
  Tourism Forum
  Tourism Forum
  Ulsterbus Fleet: Age
  Ulsterbus Fleet: Age
  Belfast-Lame Railway
  Belfast-Lame Railway
  Northern Ireland: Transport Strategy
  Northern Ireland: Transport Strategy
  Northern Ireland: Statutory Rules Report
  Northern Ireland: Statutory Rules Report
  Northern Ireland: Statutory Instruments
  Northern Ireland: Statutory Instruments
  Electoral Commissioners: Recruitment
  Electoral Commissioners: Recruitment
  Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries
  Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries
  Youth Offending Teams
  Youth Offending Teams
  Youth Offenders: Ethnic Monitoring
  Youth Offenders: Ethnic Monitoring
  Guernsey: Legal Aid
  Guernsey: Legal Aid
  Criminal Proceedings and Human Rights Act
  Criminal Proceedings and Human Rights Act
  Pentecostal Church, Brierfield: Petrol Bomb Attack
  Pentecostal Church, Brierfield: Petrol Bomb Attack
  Deaf Suspects: Conduct of Police Interviews
  Deaf Suspects: Conduct of Police Interviews
  Oakington: Absconding Asylum Applicants
  Oakington: Absconding Asylum Applicants
  Human Rights Act: Training Events
  Human Rights Act: Training Events
  Burglaries by Bogus House Callers
  Burglaries by Bogus House Callers
  Blackwell Report
  Blackwell Report
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  New Local Government Network
  New Local Government Network
  Disability Rights in Education
  Disability Rights in Education
  History Teaching
  History Teaching