Sitting of 2 February 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 9 February.

  COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (ERISKAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Rural Affairs
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on her work to date in the co-ordination of Government policy on rural affairs. [106582]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I chair the new Cabinet committee on rural affairs. The committee met at the end of last year and will meet again as and when necessary. The committee's role is to co-ordinate the Government's policies affecting rural areas.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that farming incomes have fallen by 75 per cent. in three years and, on average, hill farmers earn only £2,000, is it not an abominable insult to countryside dwellers for a Minister who admits ignorance of rural affairs to co-ordinate a policy in which she has no input on behalf of people for whom, as the Prime Minister showed yesterday, he cares little, and will do less?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I think the role of co-ordinating between Departments is valuable. I have a love of the countryside and an understanding of agriculture: I was merely pointing out that I do not have a vested interest—from one perspective or the other. What the hon. Gentleman said about the Prime Minister is patently not true. My right hon. Friend made it clear when he spoke to the National Farmers Union yesterday that the Government have given British farmers considerable support: £3.5 billion, with an additional £750 million this year. In addition, the rural programme that we have just put together will modulate some of that money to ensure
    1026
    that other parts of rural communities are allowed to grow—not merely the environment, but industries in addition to agriculture, and communities as well. That is a much greater degree of interest than was shown by the Conservative Government when they were in power.
    Dr. Tony Wright: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government are considering extending the committee for rural affairs into a fully fledged department for rural affairs, to embrace both agriculture and the countryside? Would not that be a joined-up approach, and would not my right hon. Friend be an admirable person to head such a department?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The ministerial network is working with Departments that have an interest in rural affairs to ensure that we maximise the impact of our policies for rural communities. The suitability of a rural department has been discussed on and off many times. There are vested interests on both sides. Obviously, that view will be considered in the rural White Paper, but our current position is that the ministerial network is the most effective and efficient way to move forward.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: In addition to the considerable problems that face agriculture, does the Minister recognise that the fate of village sub-post offices poses a huge threat to the viability of rural communities? Will the right hon. Lady take it upon herself—as the only example that we can see of an opportunity for joined-up thinking on the issue—to ensure that her colleagues in the Departments of Social Security, of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and of Trade and Industry talk to one another about this extremely important matter? Clearly, there is a failure of communication at the moment.
    Marjorie Mowlam: There is no such failure. The performance and innovation unit is looking into the future of rural post offices and will produce a report. The previous Government did nothing to stop shops and post offices closing—in fact, 32 schools closed every year—but we have put extra money into more schools and buses. We have already offered village post offices and shops a 50 per cent. tax relief because we realise what an important and central focus they are for many rural communities. On the future of the post offices, we are listening and consulting. Departments are talking. We have talked about the matter with many Departments, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

    Drugs Strategy (North Wales)
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If she will make a statement on the Government's drugs strategy in north Wales relating to children and young people. [106583]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): One of the key aims of the Government's anti-drugs strategy is to help young people resist drug misuse in order to achieve their full potential in society. The others are to help communities protect themselves from anti-social and criminal behaviour; to provide treatment to help people overcome their drug addiction; and to stifle the availability of drugs in Britain.

    1027
    The National Assembly for Wales will shortly be launching a refocused substance misuse strategy for Wales that will reflect the same aims.
    Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a survey that was conducted by the University of Wales, Bangor, on behalf of the North Wales police, which revealed that more than a third of north Wales school children who have been offered drugs were first approached at the age of 12 or under, and that there is a misconception that rural areas are not affected by drugs?
    I am aware that a drugs treatment fund has been identified in Wales, but, in view of the alarming figures among children and young people, do the Government have plans to allocate additional resources for drugs prevention and education?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right to say that substantial numbers of young people of varying ages throughout Britain are being approached and offered substances such as drugs and alcohol which can be abused. It is important to have a partnership approach. That is why the National Assembly for Wales will be putting forward proposals to work with communities in Wales on an agreed national strategy. Since 1998, substantial new resources have been provided for a three-year programme to tackle drugs misuse, criminal activity, rehabilitation and refocusing people's lives, and education to try to develop awareness among young people of the dangers of abusing substances including drugs. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and I assure her that drugs issues are a No. 1 priority for the Government.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Following the question of the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), with which I fully agree, will additional resources be made available for the Welsh Assembly? It is not overstating the case to say that primary schools in particular are being targeted by those evil people who sell drugs, and resources are needed to educate children about the evils of drugs. Is there any possibility that further resources will be made available?
    Mr. McCartney: The operational strategy for the new drugs proposals for Wales is a matter for the Assembly. However, I clearly said that so far the Government have made available an extra £217 million—to deal with prison issues; to pilot and implement drug treatment and testing orders; for health authorities and local authorities to provide new treatment services; to improve community care services for drugs misusers; and for drug action teams. That is a multi-million pound new investment. The Government are providing significant new resources throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to tackle drugs misuse at its roots in the community. At the same time, we are providing resources for those who suffer mental and physical ill-health as a result of their drug addiction.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: When will the Minister realise that his drugs strategy is not working, in
    1028
    north Wales or anywhere else? When will a royal commission be set up to examine all aspects of drugs misuse throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady's first comment was a rather cheap shot. I speak with some feeling and gusto when I say that heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine and a range of other highly addictive drugs cause serious physical and mental health problems, destroy individuals' lives, damage and disrupt families and communities, and cause HIV and hepatitis C. We do not need a royal commission to tell us that; it is staring us in the face. What we need is support for the 10-year Government strategy to reduce drug addiction, tackle those on the street who peddle drugs and deal with those suffering from addiction, the victims and their families. Hon. Members should get behind the Government strategy and stop making cheap political points.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: The results of a recent Home Office drugs survey showed that 50 per cent. of 16-year-olds have tried cannabis at least once. Bearing in mind the American experience that a strong anti-drugs campaign with a clear message can deliver results, will the right hon. Gentleman now endorse a "just say no" message and support tougher penalties for drug pushers who target young people outside schools and elsewhere, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?
    Mr. McCartney: May I deal with the various aspects raised by the hon. Lady? Every sane person in Britain is, like the Government, behind the campaign to encourage people to just say no to drugs and other abuses, but it is not as simple as that. We need to provide our children with the skill to deal with peer-group pressure, which means providing resources at every level of the education system to encourage young people—at a very early age—and teachers to acquire knowledge of how to handle being approached on drug issues in the community, at school or in a family situation. A long-term investment in education and training is needed so that our young people can cope and not only say no but withstand any sustained pressure that is put on them.
    The hon. Lady raised the issue of dealing with drug traffickers: those who peddle drugs for profit in the community and the big-time criminals. The Government are currently undertaking a review dealing with the seizure of criminal assets and a report will go to the Prime Minister in the spring. I am responsible for that report. Rest assured that we are four-square on tackling drugs and improving access for Customs and Excise, the police, the courts and others to ensure that we get to the criminals and the heart of organised crime and businesses that are designed to flout the law and import drugs into Britain at every level to abuse our children and our communities. I hope that the House is four-square behind our strategy.

    Open Days
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What plans she has to hold more open days in Government Departments. [106584]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): Open days are an important way of making Departments more accessible to people from all backgrounds. The Cabinet Office held its first open day in November last year. Other Departments have already held similar open days; some plan to hold their first later in the year. Achieving a dramatic improvement in diversity is a central plank of our civil service reform programme.
    Mr. Coaker: Will my hon. Friend do as much as he can to encourage as many open days as possible in various Departments across government? Students attended the Foreign Office's many recent open days and they are a good way of encouraging diversity so that people from a wider variety of backgrounds enter the civil service.
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend is quite right: open days are a way of attracting people from all backgrounds, including ethnic backgrounds, into the civil service. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, GCHQ and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are to hold open days later this year and it is important to get across the fact that a person does not have to be a white male middle-class graduate of Oxford or Cambridge to get into the civil service.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Will taxpayers be able to visit Departments on those open days to see whether they are getting value for money for the extra £4 million that the Government are squandering on armies of special advisers?
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about special advisers. I think what he objects to is the fact that the Government are putting forward their policies effectively. If he looks at the figures on expenditure at the centre of government, he will find that in real terms there has been an overall reduction of 5 per cent.

    Truancy
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: What progress is being made in implementing the social exclusion unit's report on truancy. [106586]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Good progress is being made in implementing the social exclusion unit's report and, as part of that process, the Department for Education and Employment recently launched "Tackling Truancy Together" for consultation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and I are monitoring progress within and across Departments in Whitehall and beyond.
    Mrs. Heal: I welcome the action that my right hon. Friend and her ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment are taking to tackle truancy and exclusion, as about 1 million children are truanting and many thousands are excluded. There is no doubt that more has to be done to cut those numbers, so I am delighted that a new unit is to be established at Britannia school in Rowley Regis to tackle that very problem. The social exclusion unit has set out an action
    1030
    plan to reduce those numbers by a third by 2002. Is my right hon. Friend confident that we can meet that ambitious target?
    Marjorie Mowlam: As chair of the ministerial network that exists to ensure that we meet our targets by working with Ministers across Departments, I firmly believe that we have a chance.
    We have put an extra £500 million into the policy, so there is money "on the ground"—as with the unit that has been established in the school that my hon. Friend mentioned. We have introduced guidelines to help schools deal with truancy, and in April we will introduce a dowry system that will give children who repeatedly truant, or are socially excluded, grants to enable them to attend schools that will provide for their needs.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has taken responsibility for the social exclusion unit, thus ensuring that there is leadership at Cabinet level. I hope, however, that she will pay particular attention to the role of child mental health services in truancy cases. Truancy may be the beginning of a delinquent career, but it may also be an indication that things are seriously wrong for a child. There is a real problem here in regard to joined-up government—the problem of ensuring that the Home Office, education services and social services jointly fund child mental health provision. Will the right hon. Lady consider that herself, and also, perhaps, speak to representatives of Young Minds, which provides some of the most pioneering and effective services?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I know of the right hon. Lady's interest in the matter. Let me reassure her that child mental health will be one of our considerations when a system is established—either in the form of units, or in another form that will enable us to deal with the specific question of educational health in schools—for repeated truants, and kids who have been excluded from school. That system will be cross-departmental.
    As the right hon. Lady will know from experience, such a system will be particularly hard to achieve, but we think that the cross-departmental work that we are currently doing is quite successful in establishing joined-up policy-making. We hope that, following some of our submissions to the spending review body, we may even secure joined-up money, which would encourage still better co-operation. We are doing all that we can to bring that about through our links with local partnerships, local authorities, the voluntary sector and health departments.

    News Releases
    Mr. Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on her role in co-ordinating news releases from different Departments. [106587]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has no role in co-ordinating news releases from other Departments.
    Mr. Baker: That is interesting. Is the Minister aware that last year the Government issued 13,500 press

    1031
    releases—one every nine minutes? What was the cost to the public purse? Have there been any objections to the practice in the Civil Service? Does that explain why 16 out of 17 heads of information in the Civil Service have been replaced since the Government came to power? Perhaps the Government prefer heads of disinformation.
    Mr. Stringer: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Liberal policy is that we should not tell the people of this country what the Government are doing? That is how it sounded. As for changing heads of the information service, if the hon. Gentleman looks back to the period between 1979 and 1981 he will learn that 13 departmental heads of information changed over that time. It is not unusual for heads of information to change when Ministers change.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, while the Cabinet Office has no role in co-ordinating the publication of news releases, the present Government have had more good news to release in two and a half years than the last Government had in 18?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The basic policy of both Opposition parties is not to want the Government to spend money on informing people of rights that they—the Conservative party and the Liberal party—have opposed on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that civil servants should remain neutral and should not be politicised? If so, how does he reconcile that position with the recent statement by the head of attack at Millbank, the headquarters of the Labour party, to the effect that it has regular contacts with No. 10's press office?
    Mr. Stringer: It is clearly the Government's policy that the civil service will retain, and does retain, its impartiality and integrity. The existence of special advisers whose responsibility it is to explain Government policy in a political context helps to retain the impartiality of the civil service.

    Online Government Services
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions she has had with internet service providers on the provision of Government services online. [106588]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I began last year a series of quarterly meetings with a range of private sector colleagues, including internet service providers, about information age government services. This is in line with our strategy of: creating a platform of integrated service delivery, which would support a wide range of access technologies and partnerships with local government and the private sector; using the Government secure intranet to link up public servants and also establish how local authorities can interface with it; a common policy on authentication, smartcards and website navigation; and a strategic approach to data standards.
    Miss McIntosh: Fresh from meeting Bill Gates last year, the Prime Minister said that Britain could lead the
    1032
    world in exploiting e-commerce. That is clearly not an ambition shared by the Home Office. Will the Minister confirm that 11 of 17 Home Office information technology projects have not been or will not be completed in time? If so, why, and what measures will the Minister and the Government take to improve their appalling IT record in this area?
    Mr. McCartney: First, the vast majority of IT projects that have run into trouble, with which the Government are dealing, were procured under the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government have had to clear up the mess that was left behind for us. Secondly, 55 per cent. of businesses in Britain are already using e-commerce because of the Government's activity. That is the highest use level in Europe. However, we will do more. We will ensure that in both the private and public sectors we will be leaders in e-commerce.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: My right hon. Friend will know that when we were dealing with the Y2K issue, we eventually published a sort of league table setting out where each Department was. Does he intend to do the same in regard to the electronic delivery performance of each Department?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce and myself and the e-envoy are responsible for ensuring that Departments reach the Government's targets. I assure my hon. Friend that all three of us are working with the Departments to ensure that they meet the target of 100 per cent. capability by the year 2008.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Government are keen on targets and have set one to ensure that 25 per cent. of dealings with government involve the electronic delivery of services by 2002. Will the Minister therefore explain why only 3 per cent. of such dealings were through the internet in 1999, and why the Government's figures project only 12 per cent. in 2002?
    Mr. McCartney: We are the first Government to set any targets in this area. The previous Government did nothing to establish a platform for the introduction of e-commerce. I made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that the Government have targets and that we intend to reach them. We have the structures, policies and finance in place, and we will get training in place. We have the political leadership to do that.
    Mr. Lansley: I have made it clear to the Minister that the Government admit that they will not reach their target.
    With the advent of digital technology, many people will be hoping to use interactive television, which will be user-friendly to many who do not have personal computers. The Government's figures suggest that 0 per cent. of government dealings with the public will be by interactive television by 2002. Why so poor a performance?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep last week—or else trying to keep his job in the shadow Cabinet. If he had been awake, he would have

    1033
    noted that we placed in the public domain a digital television strategy for the provision of government services. The hon. Gentleman is well behind the game. He should start listening, and catching up with what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the internet—and IT in general—offers the best means of restoring to isolated rural communities the services that they lost under the previous Government, and of providing many services that they have not hitherto enjoyed? Does he further agree that the provision of such services has the additional merit of reducing dependence on both public transport and the private car, because they reduce the need to travel? Will he ensure that the rural White Paper to be published later this year will place due emphasis on this issue?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. One of the key strategies that the Government have implemented was designed to save the rural post office network from privatisation by the Tories. That will mean hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment and will provide a technology platform for post offices in rural areas and for rural communities. At last, the rural community has a Government who battle for it.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Khabra: May I take the opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for coming to my constituency, accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister, to celebrate Labour's first 1,000 days in power?
    My question concerns the economy. The Prime Minister is aware that, between 1990 and 1992, 140,000 businesses failed and 188,000 mortgage repossessions took place. That was due to the dogma of Tory party politics. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting his question.
    Mr. Khabra: Will the Prime Minister outline how Labour is helping small businesses and business in the community to prosper across the country and in my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: We have reduced small business tax, but, most important, we have produced stability in economic management after the boom and bust of the Conservative years, and there are 800,000 more jobs in
    1034
    the economy since this Government came to power. We have also introduced a minimum wage, a working families tax credit and Bank of England independence. The Conservative party would scrap every single one of those measures. Indeed, today, the new shadow Chancellor has recommitted himself to the tax guarantee and said that we are spending too much money, so let us hear no more complaints from Conservatives about schools and hospitals. We are spending more. They would spend less.
    Mr. William Hague: May I first express, as we have not done so in the House yet this week, our horror at last Friday's attack on the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and our deep sadness, which will be felt across the whole House, at the death of Andrew Pennington? We send our condolences to his family and our good wishes to the hon. Gentleman for a speedy return.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that, since he took office, the backlog of asylum seekers has doubled? Is he aware that some councils now spend more on bogus asylum seekers than on looking after elderly people? Is he aware that the Home Secretary said in 1996 that, if a Labour Government did not speed up applications, they "shall have failed"? Will the Prime Minister now confirm that the Home Secretary has failed?
    The Prime Minister: I concur entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and Andrew Pennington. We all join in sending our very best wishes and our sympathy to the hon. Gentleman and our profound condolences to the family of Mr. Pennington.
    On the Home Secretary's record, of course, it is precisely for that reason that we have introduced the new asylum provisions. That will mean that we can speed up the asylum seekers cases. We can distinguish better between the bogus and the non-bogus cases. Of course, we inherited a system that was a complete mess. As a result of our legislation, in many ways opposed by the right hon. Gentleman's party, we can now clean it up.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has been there for three years now and it is always promises. The cheque is always in the post, or going to be in the post. It is not just us saying that. The Labour majority on the Public Accounts Committee says that the Government are
    "not living up to their responsibility"
    and that the response of the Home Office is,
    "to say the least, inadequate."
    He should know that, in the last full year of a Conservative Government, the number of asylum seekers fell by 30 per cent. [Interruption.] Oh, some of the figures are arriving. Let us hope that they are the right figures. Let us hope that they show that, since he has been in office, the number has increased by 140 per cent. It follows decision after decision by the Government to weaken asylum policies.
    Will the Prime Minister tell the House the latest figures—now that the Home Secretary has started passing him figures—on what proportion of people served orders to leave the country actually left the country in the past year?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we have taken no action on asylum. As a result of the measures that we have introduced, we shall be able to shorten dramatically the length of time that it takes to deal with asylum cases. We know the reasons why the number of asylum cases has increased. Most of the cases that are coming in are from countries such as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, providing a very good reason why the numbers have risen in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. There was also a time under the previous Government when asylum seeker applications rose dramatically.
    The only way of dealing with it is to have in place a proper, fast and effective way of dealing with those cases, which is precisely what we have done. We have also changed—this is important—the benefit rules for asylum seekers. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members opposed our changing those rules, despite having complained about them. If we had adopted the amendments tabled to the Immigration and Asylum Act by Conservative Members, we would be paying out £500 million more.
    Mr. Hague: The reason why the numbers have increased is that the Prime Minister has made the United Kingdom a soft touch for asylum seekers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The Prime Minister clearly does not know the numbers, but he ought to, because it is a national scandal. In the past year, 19,000 people were served orders to leave the country, but 6,800 actually did so. More than two thirds of the people whom he thinks should be deported are not deported.
    So for the Prime Minister it is more promises—the cheque is in the post. The Government have reversed deportation decisions taken by the previous Government. They have abolished the fast track list and failed to enforce our controls on illegal working. On this issue as on so much else, he is all talk—no delivery.
    The Prime Minister: It is completely untrue to say that we have dismantled the controls on immigration and asylum, because we have been tightening them up. We have also had to do so in the face of opposition from Conservative Members. A moment ago, I mentioned the benefit rules. I should mention another provision that Conservative Members have opposed—the provision that fines lorry drivers who bring illegal asylum seekers into the country. The right hon. Gentleman opposed that measure. Therefore, let us not have it from him that we inherited a perfect situation, because we inherited a backlog of tens of thousands of cases—[Interruption.] Yes, because the system was at fault.
    Our Government reformed the system. From April 2000, the new system will be in place, with new rules on benefit and new holding centres being opened up, so that claims can processed quickly and we shall be able to get the numbers back down again. Those are the measures that we have introduced, clearing up the mess that the right hon. Gentleman left us.
    Mr. Frank Roy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, after its decontamination, the former Ravenscraig steel site in my constituency is now ready for rebuilding? I remind the House that the workers at that steel site felt betrayed and abandoned by the former, Conservative Government. Will the Prime Minister accept
    1036
    from me, a former steelworker, an invi1tation to come and see for himself how Ravenscraig is rising from the ashes of its industrial betrayal?
    The Prime Minister: That is great news. I know that my hon. Friend worked at the Ravenscraig steelworks for 14 years, and it is good to see that regeneration project under way. People will of course remember that the previous Government closed the steelworks complex, with the loss of 1,200 jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] It was not boring for the 1,200 workers who lost their jobs. However, it will be a better and more interesting life for those who will now be able to work there again.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative party and many others from both sides of the House who, over the past few days, have expressed their condolences for the dreadful murder of Councillor Andrew Pennington and the vicious assault on my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). Those sentiments have been much appreciated. I am sure that we all agree that nothing so outrageous will cause any of us in any party or any part of the country to undermine the vital link with our constituents of enabling them to come to see us.
    As the rural agenda is to the forefront this week, in advance of the Prime Minister's visit to the south-west tomorrow, and given the importance of post offices to rural communities, will he tell us how many rural post offices closed during the first two years of his Administration?
    The Prime Minister: We have given a strong commitment to rural post offices. The previous Government were committed to privatising the Post Office. That is not our policy. As a result of the measures that have been announced, we shall be able to protect rural post offices in future.
    Mr. Kennedy: The House of Commons Library figure is 476. The chief executive officer of the Post Office predicts that, if the Postal Services Bill is passed, a further 8,000 post offices will close. That is almost half the national network. Will the Prime Minister rethink the legislation and consider the possibility of subsidy? If he does not and that many post offices go, it will be a further nail in the coffin for villages and rural communities throughout the land.
    The Prime Minister: The figure of 8,000 is wrong for the reasons that I have just given. In the Bill, we are ensuring that we protect rural post offices. So that everyone understands, let me explain the issue. The Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency will move to paying all benefits via personal bank accounts. It is expected that, by then, the Post Office will have extended its arrangements with the banks to offer a range of banking facilities on an agency basis. That will enable people to continue to collect their benefits in cash. It would be very foolish—I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting this—not to modernise the way in which benefits are paid. We should surely modernise so that benefits are paid into bank accounts for people who want that, but we shall make arrangements for those who do not want that to enable them to continue

    1037
    collecting their benefits in cash. That is a sensible arrangement. Now that the technology exists, it would be foolish to leave post offices to carry on paying benefits in the same old way. That would cost a lot more money. As for further subsidies, it is time that the Liberal Democrats stopped asking for more money to be spent on everything without making a single suggestion as to where that money will come from.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for reminding the House and the country that the great divide between Labour and the Tories is that Labour will rebuild the national health service while the Tories would just privatise it. When he is considering the specific measures that will allow Labour to close the gap between Britain's health spending and the European average, will he look at the artificial ceiling on national insurance contributions and a more progressive system of corporate tax contributions, which are far lower in Britain than in most of our European counterparts? Will he also reflect on whether the current public mood would prefer us to put a penny into health rather than taking it off tax?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a lot of support from somewhere. I do not agree with him on tax. We were right to cut corporation tax. However, he is entirely right to say that the Conservatives have made a big strategic decision on the health service. I do not know whether anyone has read today's "Clear Blue Water" pamphlet, but it spells out starkly that their policy is to drive large numbers of people out of the health service and to make them take out private medical insurance. For those over 65, it will cost £60 to £80 a week to get private medical insurance. The only way to tackle the problem is our way: more hospital buildings, more nurses and doctors into the health service and more facilities. We are doing all that. The way to do it is to modernise the national health service, not to privatise it.
    Sir David Madel: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with what he has read in today's papers concerning the purchase of shares by the editor of the Daily Mirror? Does he agree that it is only fair and reasonable to all concerned that the Press Complaints Commission should examine the issue?
    The Prime Minister: I can truthfully say that that is really not a matter for me.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the teaching profession, particularly in light of the generous pay award that teachers received yesterday and their hard work putting into effect the reforms that the Labour Government have introduced in the past two and a half years?
    The Prime Minister: Teachers have delivered magnificent results in our primary schools, with the best-ever results in literacy and numeracy. I believe that the performance-related pay proposals are increasingly winning support. It was a good settlement for the teachers, but we are now linking an even greater pay award to
    1038
    standards and results. That is the right way to do it. Teachers and parents should realise that if the Conservatives had been in government, the money would have been taken back.
    Mr. David Prior: British farming and the countryside are in deep crisis. Post offices and village shops are closing. Will the Prime Minister reconsider his plan to pay benefits directly into bank accounts and preserve more rural post offices?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a Conservative Member. His party's plan at the election was to privatise the Post Office. It is absurd that he should stand there and tell me that we should not pay people's benefits in the most effective way. The way to deal with the problems of post offices and others is to modernise the system, but to make sure that we can still allow people to collect their benefits in cash if they so wish. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said yesterday that the farming situation is serious, particularly in sectors such as the pig industry. We need a proper long-term strategy; we do not need simply to pay ever-greater subsidies because we cannot do that. As for the countryside, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, under this Government, the policy of closing rural schools has been put in reverse.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the forthcoming elections and the by-elections in Wales and Scotland, will my right hon. Friend tell us what lessons the Government have learned from the people of Falkirk, West, who elected their Member of the Scottish Parliament with the biggest vote, and the biggest majority, in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is good to see the hon. Gentleman back again. I remind him that it was this Labour Government who delivered devolution to the people. Many previous political parties—indeed, previous Labour parties—promised devolution. We delivered it. We are also delivering the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the new deal, all of which have helped people in his constituency. I believe that that is one reason why people will return loyal Labour Members of Parliament at the next election.
    Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister still think, as he has claimed on various occasions, that it would be "fatuous", "absurd" and "daft" to rule out joining the euro in the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I do. Our policy remains exactly the same: to keep the option open and determine it according to the British national interest. That is a more sensible position than the right hon. Gentleman's position, which I thought I had described as fatuous. It was fatuous of him to say that he would oppose it as a matter of principle for five years, but consider it as a matter of principle in the sixth year.
    Mr. Hague: The president of the European Central bank says that our economy is out of step. He said:
    "if ever the UK decides to join, you are talking about years from today".

    1039
    The former Labour Foreign Secretary, Lord Owen, said:
    "the time has come to rule out UK membership … for the next Parliament".
    Is that not now the view of the sensible mainstream majority of the country? In addition to his previous answer, can the Prime Minister confirm that he will fight the next election determined to keep open the option of joining the euro in the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: Of course—because we have set out the policies; I repeated them last Friday. The decision is simply this: there are those people who say that we should join the euro now, regardless of the economic conditions; then, there are those people, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who say that we should not join the euro, regardless of the economic conditions. I happen to believe that the sensible test is British jobs, British industry and British investment.
    To rule out the euro in the next Parliament—hon. Members should remember that the final decision lies with the people in a referendum—is foolish and backward. I shall have no part of that, either at the next election or in the future. That is the position held by the right hon. Gentleman and that is the difference between us.
    If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote sensible mainstream people, there were many people in his own party who used to be in the mainstream but are not there now, because the mainstream of his party is now the extreme of politics.
    Mr. Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answers. I thank him for making it clear that the only sure way to keep the pound is to support the Conservative party at the next election.
    The Prime Minister: There will be a referendum. The choice is with the British people. The question is whether we remove that choice and say, "Even if it is in Britain's interests, even if it's best for jobs and industry and business, then we are not going to give you that choice at all". That is not a sensible position. It is a position born from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has subcontracted his leadership to the extreme right in his party.
    Are people such as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), now outcasts in that party? Is the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) now an outcast in that party? Is the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), also an outcast? Those people are addressing the national interest.
    What is in the national interest is to keep the option open, to make the preparation so that we can join if we want to do so, to give the final choice to the British people in a referendum, but not to end up retreating to the sidelines of Europe for the sake of pandering to a few anti-Europeans in the Conservative party.
    Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, informing the House that he was setting up an independent inquiry into the issues raised by the murders committed by Dr. Shipman, has gone down well in my constituency? People there are understandably still deep in shock as a result of the court's
    1040
    findings. Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that the inquiry is thorough and expeditious, and that the Government act speedily on its findings?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am sure that that will happen. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has been doing to help his constituents to come to terms with a terrible tragedy. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the relatives and friends of those who died.
    The vast majority of doctors provide an excellent service for their patients. It is important to say that straight away. This case was highly exceptional. However, we must learn lessons from it. I am sure that the General Medical Council will consider those lessons. We shall learn them through the independent inquiry announced yesterday. We shall act on them; indeed, we are already taking certain measures.
    However, it is important that we realise that this was a highly exceptional case. Doctors look after their patients throughout the country. There is no more important relationship than the bond of trust that exists between doctors and their patients. They do a fantastic job for this country. This has been a terrible, tragic and exceptional case. We have to learn lessons from it; we will learn them and we will act on them.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Prime Minister is prepared to speak only equivocally about the future of this country's relationship with the euro, will he at least speak clearly about the consequences of the present strength of the pound, especially on the farming industry, which he addressed yesterday? In these circumstances, how can he fail to respond to the needs of the farming industry by making the compensation payments for the strength of our currency, which he is allowed to make and which have been agreed by the European Union?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out to people but I will is that we are paying out hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for the strength of the pound. However, if we were to make the claim that he is suggesting, 70 per cent. of that money would have to be repaid. In other words, it is a very large public spending commitment. To put the matter into context, we are spending £3.5 billion in agricultural support. That is more than the support that we pay out for the rest of British industry put together. It is important and right that we do so. Agriculture and farming are important to our country and they are, as I accepted yesterday, in a state of crisis. The only way of dealing with that is a long-term plan for the future and not the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives promising that they will end up paying out large sums of money in the short term. That is simply not going to be the answer.
    As for the euro, it is not an equivocal position; the tests are quite clear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go into the euro tomorrow—
    Mr. Maclennan: No.
    The Prime Minister: Then the right hon. Gentleman's position is, I suspect, the same as mine. It depends on the

    1041
    national economic interest. That is the proper test. We are not convergent with the euro at the present time, which is why it would not be sensible to join now, but we have set out the economic conditions. Provided that those economic conditions are met, we will make the recommendation to the British people. We have said that, and we will hold to that.
    Mr. Bob Laxton: From time to time, the media pass comment on the ability, and sometimes the inability, of party leaders to control their parliamentary party. Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps an extreme form of control freakery happens when a leader of a party who is unable to control his Back Benchers seeks the assistance of another party leader to help him along the way a little?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot quite think to what my hon. Friend is referring. Anyway, it is all fine—the new relationship between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor is all sorted out, because the shadow Chancellor has described the Leader of the Opposition this morning as "unassailable".
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Have the Government got the courage, decency and honesty to admit that no decommissioning of terrorist weapons has taken place in Northern Ireland? Will they stop putting unfair pressure on the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and the long-suffering Unionist party and place the blame where it rests—firmly on the shoulders of the terrorists, Sinn Fein-IRA?
    The Prime Minister: There has to be decommissioning; there has not been decommissioning. Under the agreement, it is quite clear that decommissioning is supposed to happen. There is no doubt about that at all. I am interested, as ever, in trying to find a way through this—be under no mistake about that. I know that people, such as the hon. Lady, have not been in favour of much of what we have done in the past two and a half years or indeed of the Good Friday agreement—
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What have you done?
    The Prime Minister: What have we done? For all the difficulties in Northern Ireland today, we have the best chance of peace that we have had for generations, there is investment pouring in and there is peace in place that may not be perfect but is a million miles better than what was there before. There has to be decommissioning and, if there is not, there is going to be a serious problem with the process. There is no doubt about that, which is why we are now working day and night to try to overcome that difficulty. I simply say to the hon. Lady that to dismiss
    1042
    everything that has happened in Northern Ireland is wrong, and we are not putting unfair pressure on people. We are trying to make sure that we find a way through that allows peace and stability for the future. At the heart of this deal in the Good Friday agreement is a good deal for both sides.
    Let me explain it once again so that people understand. It is that we end up with the principle of consent accepted by everybody; it is that we end up with the relinquishment of the territorial claim of the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, which we now have; it is that we have institutions that reach across the communities in Northern Ireland, which we now have; and it is that we have justice and equality for nationalists in Northern Ireland with a recognition of their nationalist aspirations. Decommissioning is part of that and it has to happen, but let no one doubt how far we have come and therefore how important it is to try to save it.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that, whatever happens in the present difficult circumstances, the Good Friday agreement should remain on the agenda? It was a fine achievement and it is fair to both communities. By refusing even to start decommissioning, is not the IRA playing into the hands of the very people who were opposed to the Good Friday agreement from day 1, who include, I believe, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)?
    The Prime Minister: That is why there has to be progress on that issue. To be blunt, at present there is insufficient progress for General de Chastelain to make the report that needs to be made. However, I hope that we can still bring home to everybody the need to make that progress because of the importance of the peace process. This is the moment when we have to know where we stand on this particular issue, and that is the importance of the discussions that are going on now.
    Whatever happens in the next couple of days, I shall carry on working to try to make the peace process take root because, in the communities of Northern Ireland, people desperately want it to work, but not at any price, which is why decommissioning has to be, and is, part of the agreement. Before we dismiss the progress that has been made, we should remind ourselves that, if we do not sort out the peace process and get it moving forward again, there are people who will not grow up in normal conditions and some who will not be alive at all. We should never forget that that is what is at stake.
    There are very few things in politics that one can affect profoundly, and this issue is one of them, so we shall carry on working to resolve it as best as we can. There is no doubt that there is a serious problem and, unless there is substantial progress, we will have a serious crisis on our hands. I hope that we can get over that difficulty and that all Members of the House will try to help us to do so.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to yesterday's Hansard, where the Secretary of State for Health said:
"The GMC must genuinely exist to protect patients. It must be truly accountable and it must be guided at all times by the welfare and safety of patients."—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 908.]
I have today been handed a file of documents that makes serious allegations about a private cosmetic surgeon, who practises at various clinics in the United Kingdom. The former patients and other surgeons who made the allegations consider it an absolute scandal that he is still operating. He has even been described as a psychopath by another doctor. The General Medical Council has received many complaints about him, yet he continues to operate.
I have not named that surgeon today, but I shall have no hesitation in doing so in a week's time unless I hear something that dissuades me. Can we expect a further statement from the Secretary of State for Health about how he intends to ensure that patients are protected against cowboy operators in cosmetic surgery?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Secretary of State that he seeks to make a further statement. I understand what the hon. Lady said about her desire to raise the issue again if no statement is
1044
forthcoming. She is a long-standing Member of the House, and I am sure that she knows her way around and is aware of how to proceed in the matter.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have already ruled once this year on the length of Ministers' answers. Today, I had Question 7 on the Order Paper, and I reasonably expected that I would have a chance to ask it. However, the Minister responsible chose to filibuster to prevent the issue of the anti-drugs co-ordinator being raised because he knows very well that the anti-drugs co-ordinator has been the victim of a whispering campaign by the Government, notwithstanding the fact that he receives—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the problem for me?
Mr. Chope: In my submission, Madam Speaker, this is a serious problem for you. Your responsibility, which you uphold, is to protect the rights of Back Benchers. Is it not reasonable to expect more than six Back-Bench questions to be asked in half an hour?
Madam Speaker: There were more Back-Bench questions, because supplementary questions were asked, but I certainly accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am disappointed daily by how few questions on the Order Paper are reached—largely because of the number of questions that individual Back Benchers ask and the very long answers that Ministers often give. It appears that I make such a statement every week. I hope that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will heed my words and that the message will go throughout the House to Back Benchers of all parties and to all Departments, wherever they may be throughout London. Thank you very much for raising the matter, Mr. Chope.

Register of Medical Practitioners (Amendment)
3.35 pm
Ms Linda Perham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 with respect to the restoration of names to the register of medical practitioners; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is to give the General Medical Council greater powers to protect patients. Where a doctor is erased from the register for committing a criminal offence or for serious professional misconduct, my Bill would extend the time before that doctor could apply to be restored to the register from 10 months to three years. It would give the GMC the power, after two unsuccessful applications for restoration, to ban that doctor from ever reapplying. It would also require struck-off doctors to show that they have the skill and knowledge to be able to practise again safely.
Those new powers would ensure that a doctor had no chance of being able to practise again for at least three years following erasure. Doctors would then have the right to two chances to convince the GMC that they were rehabilitated and safe to practise. The measure would strengthen sanctions against dangerous doctors, provide better protection, offer public reassurance and send a clear message to the medical profession and patients that erasure from the medical register meant erasure for life, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
I present the Bill in response to a case involving a young woman who died in January 1995 as a result of a doctor failing to identify signs of fatal blood clots. She was Maria Ayling, aged 20—the same as my elder daughter, Caroline. I also have a 19-year-old daughter, Sarah, so the loss of such a young, much loved girl just out of her teens, engaged to be married with the prospect of a long, happy life, has a particular resonance for me.
Maria lived in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has supported the family in their fight for justice. Maria's father, Eric, has campaigned tirelessly these past five agonising years, right through from the anguish, despair and anger on the day of her death, to the health authority inquiry, which found her general practitioner, Dr. Gosai, in breach of the terms of service for doctors on five counts, to the fight for a High Court decision to hold an inquest, to the GMC hearing that erased Dr. Gosai from the register in 1997, to the organisation of a petition of more than 2,000 signatures to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in June, to the GMC meeting in November, when the changes that I am proposing were discussed, to this very day. I pay the warmest tribute to Mr. Ayling for his tenacity, determination and commitment to carrying on the battle on Maria's behalf.
Throughout this terrible time, Eric Ayling has been backed in his fight by our excellent, campaigning local newspapers—the Recorder group in Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge—and especially by Lindsay Jones, news editor of the Barking and Dagenham Recorder and Chris Carter, editor of the Ilford Recorder. They have continued to support Eric in their news coverage and appealed to local people to sign the petition on lengthening the amount of time before an erased doctor may reapply for restoration to the register.
1046
For members of the public, one of the most shocking revelations to arise from the case was that a doctor who has been erased from the medical register can reapply to the GMC for restoration after only 10 months. In a survey for Carlton Television last year, two thirds of people thought that a struck-off doctor was banned from ever working as a doctor again, and three quarters thought that the Government should not allow struck-off doctors ever to practise again. Under the provisions of the Medical Act 1983, doctors who should be struck off for life because of the nature of their offence may apply every 10 months to be allowed back on to the register. Although the GMC can refuse repeated applications from doctors, that right to reapply every 10 months creates a presumption in favour of doctors and makes it far more difficult for the GMC to ban for life.
Although I support the right of doctors to be rehabilitated and to be given the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness to practise, it is crucial that the public should be protected from dangerous doctors, both in the surgery and in hospital. By a tragic coincidence, only two days ago a verdict was reached in the case of Dr. Harold Shipman, an evil man who used his position as a trusted medical practitioner to murder a large number of patients. Members of the public have expressed dismay at the provisions governing doctors who are unfit to practise, which have a negative impact on the medical profession. The Bill's success is important for medical safety and the return of greater confidence in the medical profession.
I am delighted that the Bill has cross-party support, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a lay member of the GMC and chair of the Labour Back-Bench health committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and other members of that Committee. I am also pleased that Sir Donald Irvine, president of the GMC, is able to support the principles of the Bill. In a letter to me of 21 January, he wrote:
"I was glad to learn that you will be presenting a bill under the 10 minute rule on 2 February 2000 which would give the GMC greater powers for dealing with applications for restoration.
The issues surrounding the restoration of doctors are a matter of great concern to the public and the medical profession. They were debated at length by our Council in November 1999. Our lay and medical members spoke with one voice in favour of the need for the law to be changed to prevent doctors from applying to be restored for three years following erasure. Members were also fully agreed that the law must reflect a presumption that erased doctors will not be restored in any circumstances unless they can provide compelling evidence that this is in the public interest".
I am further encouraged that the chair of the GMC's committee on professional performance, Professor David John Hatch, who lives in a constituency neighbouring mine, has also offered his support to the Bill.
I should also like to thank the Consumers Association for helping to draft the Bill and for the support that it has given me in providing background information on other reforms that should be considered. Although they are not in the Bill, they should be considered in the broader context.
Last October, the Consumers Association's investigation into GMC procedures for dealing with complaints about doctors uncovered a system that simply does not work for patients. Complainants were overwhelmingly dissatisfied

1047
and the majority questioned the fairness of the procedures. Among several suggestions for change, the association recommended that the proportion of lay to medical members at the GMC be increased to help reduce the imbalance in some procedures. Other recommendations included routinely giving complainants an opportunity to see a doctor's response to their complaint and to have a right of reply, which they currently lack.
I believe that my Bill will go some way toward creating greater confidence in doctors and protecting patients. The relationship between doctors and patients is unique and my Bill will help to preserve the positive aspects of that relationship. The relationship is such that patients are vulnerable to the minority of doctors who abuse their position and are unfit to practise. Everyone who wants patients to be put first and supports enhancing the reputation of doctors should support the Bill. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the Government are broadly supportive of the Bill. I hope that the whole House will joining me in wishing it a speedy and successful passage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Linda Perham, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Simon Burns, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Simon Hughes, Dr. Howard Stoate and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

Register of Medical Practitioners (Amendment)
  REGISTER OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT)
  Ms Linda Perham accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 with respect to the restoration of names to the register of medical practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 57].
  Opposition Day
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Asylum and Immigration
    Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may assist the House if I explain what I have already explained to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Keen-eyed Members may have spotted the fact that the Government amendment on page 556 of the Order Paper this morning did not relate to the Opposition's motion, but was an amendment that the House passed on 26 October 1999.
    It comes down to the expression famously coined by Mr. Peter Preston, the former editor of The Guardian, in a different context: it was down to a "cod fax". As usual, Ministers agreed an appropriate amendment last night but, owing to some infelicity in the arrangements for taking that text off a word processor and faxing it, instead of its coming over to the House, the text of the amendment on 26 October 1999 came over. I hope that that does not in any way inconvenience the right hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman in their speeches.
    Madam Speaker: The Secretary of State is, as always, extremely helpful to the House.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: There is no further point of order. The matter has been dealt with.
    3.47 pm
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the Government's failure to deal with the widespread abuse of the right to political asylum and its incompetent management of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; notes that the number of asylum applications in 1999 exceeded 71,000, more than double the total inherited by the Government when it came to office, and that the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications has doubled over the past two years to a total of more than 100,000; further notes with great concern the Seventh Report of the Committee of Public Accounts (HC 130) about the Government's mismanagement of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and the fears of local authorities about the practical difficulties associated with the asylum seekers dispersal scheme; believes that the Government's 'soft touch' policy has helped bring about the current crisis; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to reduce the backlog of unprocessed immigration and asylum applications, to put in place new and effective systems of enforcement and to ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration and asylum controls.
    As you will take no further points of order, Madam Speaker, may I say that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister on the Order Paper says it all? When I first saw it, I thought that the Home Secretary was so ashamed of his record on asylum that he was desperately

    1049
    trying to debate the Mitrokhin archive instead. He now tells us that the amendment in his name and that of the Prime Minister was just an error.
    I do not know whether the Secretary of State made it clear to you, Madam Speaker, when he revealed the error—he certainly did not to me—whether he blames himself, his special advisers, his much-blamed officials or his fax machine, but on this occasion he cannot blame the previous Government.
    As far as my researches have so far carried me, which is back to 1982, there has never been a single instance of an amendment in the name of the Prime Minister not being selected for debate. The Home Secretary has set a new record, which few of us will be keen to outdo. Presumably, he would sum it up in his usual phrase—as opposed to The Guardian's—as "business as usual" at the Home Office.
    Week after week, month after month, we are confronted with the chaotic situation into which the Home Secretary's brief has descended—police numbers down, crime figures up, criminals out of prison early and reoffending when they should be in jail, not to mention the Mitrokhin archive and a host of other gaffes and instances of incompetence, which the Government were so eager to debate today.
    We shall concentrate on the Home Secretary's most visible and devastating failure to date. It is devastating not only to his and the Government's rapidly declining reputation, but to the people of Britain, especially the people of Kent, and, above all, to the genuine asylum seekers who need a settled haven quickly. The facts speak for themselves. The number of applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom was less than 30,000 in our last full year of office. Three years later, in the third year of a Labour Government, the figure is 71,000—an increase of 130 per cent. Yet the latest figures show that nearly 80 per cent. of applications are unfounded and thus rejected. None of that is coincidence.
    The Home Secretary has only himself to blame. He promised an amnesty for thousands of asylum seekers, regardless of the merits of their cases. That was his decision. The Government deliberately abandoned the checks on illegal working that we introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Again, that was his decision.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Not true.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Minister claims that that is not true, but I refer her to the debate during which we considered the Government's measures. A previous Minister of State had to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the decision not to implement our measures against illegal working was wrong. I suggest that the Minister re-read the debate; perhaps it will give her some idea of her Government's proposals.
    Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady is absolutely wrong. We have not dismantled any of the controls that she mentioned. Indeed, from time to time, I receive submissions from officials about them. As to the implementation of the prohibition on employing people who are here illegally, this Administration, unlike hers, have issued warnings.
    Miss Widdecombe: When the Minister was in opposition, she said that our measures against employers
    1050
    who took on illegal workers without having made due checks were a burden on business, which a Labour Government would not implement. Only last summer, when challenged at the Dispatch Box, a previous Minister of State admitted that the Government were wrong, and that they were reverting to measures that they may not have dismantled, but did not implement.
    The Government also promised to abolish the list of safe countries of origin. They reversed high-profile deportation decisions that we had made. They even returned someone who had already left the country. They also abolished the primary purpose rule. The message was loud and clear: Britain was once again a soft touch. The message, the decisions and the responsibility were all the Home Secretary's.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: I am sorry that I cannot attend the whole debate, but I have to attend a Public Accounts Committee hearing on entry clearance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with asylum applications soaring and chaos in the immigration case load, it beggars belief that Ministers decided to introduce a new computer system and move the immigration and nationality directorate offices?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. I shall comment on that later. I hope that my hon. Friend will not have left for the Public Accounts Committee meeting by then.
    Thousands of asylum seekers whose applications have been refused are still here. Will the Home Secretary confirm that more than 70,000 asylum seekers a year come to the United Kingdom, that up to 80 per cent. of applications are rejected, but that the immigration and nationality directorate's targets envisage only approximately 10 per cent. of those people leaving the country? Will he further confirm that even that paltry figure is not being met? Does not that mean that the system is in growing chaos? Is it surprising that so many bogus applicants come when they know that they will not be removed even when the due processes have rejected their claims?
    That is not all. The backlog of unprocessed asylum applications now stands at more than 100,000. Can the Home Secretary confirm that that is double the number that Labour inherited on coming to office and that last year, the number of asylum claims processed fell to fewer than 100,000 a month as a result of what I can only describe to my hon. Friend as the Government's totally barmy decision to reorganise and relocate the immigration and nationality directorate at the same time as it was introducing a new computer system?
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Why did the right hon. Lady sanction cutting 1,200 staff in the directorate before she found out whether the new computer, which she ordered, was efficient? The Public Accounts Committee says that it is not.
    Miss Widdecombe: I should have thought that even a child could have worked out—
    Mr. Straw: Answer.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am. Even a child could work out that, with a 40 per cent. fall in applications, one can afford

    1051
    fewer staff, but when the number of applications is rising, one needs more. If the Government cannot even take that easy step in logic, it is no wonder that the system is in chaos. However, this is the very Home Secretary who, when he opposed our highly successful measures, said:
    "if a Labour Government do as badly administratively in dealing with asylum applications as the present Government have done, we shall have failed."—[Official Report, 15 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 805.]
    If doubling the backlog is not failing, perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us on what basis he works it out to be a success. Not even the sort of arithmetic that he deployed for the new police recruit numbers will be able to weasel him out of the morass of his failed asylum system.
    The immigration and nationality directorate is failing to meet many of its key targets. For example, the published target for the present financial year is 59,000 asylum decisions, but the Government's latest estimate of achievement for the whole year is only 38,000. Three quarters of the way through the financial year, the IND is only half way towards its target for nationality decisions.
    Mr. Marsha Singh: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the real motive for this debate is to enable the Conservative party to play the race card—[Interruption.] Let me finish. That will lead to insecurity for black and Asian people from ethnic minorities who are lawfully settled here and for many who are British citizens. Clearly, she is playing the race card.
    Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman wants good race relations in this country, as we all do, a firm and fair immigration and asylum system is an absolute prerequisite. If he looks at what has been happening in Dover and elsewhere as a result of the chaos into which the Government have allowed the asylum system to descend, he will know that what we are doing today is in the interests of all sections of the community.
    To return to my argument, the failure to reach targets has been described by the Public Accounts Committee in its latest report as "deplorable". The Committee—it is not a Conservative Committee—said that under this Home Secretary
    "the Home Office are not living up to their responsibilities."
    That is an understatement.
    There are grave concerns throughout the country about the Government's plan for dispersing asylum seekers. Local authorities are concerned.
    Mr. Straw: The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a Conservative. He said of the project which the right hon. Lady authorised in 1996, that it
    "it was over-ambitious from the outset. To combine a complex information technology project with a major reorganisation was always likely to be a risky venture."
    Why did the right hon. Lady authorise that contract, fail to take account of the risks, and bind the next Government to it?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Miss Widdecombe: I will answer. Have you noticed, Madam Speaker, in overseeing the House, that as soon as
    1052
    a Member comes to the Dispatch Box to answer, hon. Members yell "Answer", which is rather a pointless exercise. Perhaps now they will listen to the answer. [Interruption.] I shall not follow the Prime Minister's example and fail to answer, I will answer.
    The decision to relocate was the Home Secretary's. He knew that a computer system was being installed and everyone knows that the installation of a new computer system is likely to be accompanied by many teething troubles, which he should not have augmented by deciding on relocation and reorganisation, as he did with the Passport Agency; then it was his computer system, and his decision to amend the law on child passports, that were involved.
    Mr. Straw: It is no wonder that my hon. Friends shout "answer" when the right hon. Lady fails to answer the question. The point made by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was that the project was over-ambitious from the outset: that she made the errors.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Government made it worse.
    Mr. Straw: I shall come to that when I make my speech. But does the right hon. Lady now accept that signing the contract and imposing it was ill thought through and over-ambitious from the outset and that the principal responsibility for that rests with her?
    Miss Widdecombe: Three years into a Labour Government they still try to say that all is the fault of the Conservative Government. I have just pointed out that the decisions that added complexities to what was already ambitious were the right hon. Gentleman's. He added those complexities and he cannot get out of that. When the day comes that the Home Secretary takes some responsibility instead of blaming everybody and everything else going for the fiascos in his Department, that will be the day he has the right to call upon others to answer anything at all.
    I was saying that the local authorities are concerned about the potential impact on their budgets of the dispersal system and the increased strain on the services being provided to local communities. The Home Office's plans for dispersal are in chaos, which is unsurprising given that the Home Secretary got his own figures wrong at the press conference when he first put forward his ideas.
    It is now reported that the local authorities will be asked by the Home Secretary to continue their voluntary scheme after 1 April, when the Home Office was supposed to take over. Is it the case, as has been reported, that there is a £90 million funding gap for the current financial year, which will have to be met by local authorities out of their budgets and, ultimately, by council tax payers?
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does the right hon. Lady agree with Kent county council that funding for asylum seekers should be a national responsibility; if so, why did she introduce the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which placed responsibility for funding on authorities such as Kent?
    Miss Widdecombe: Where I agree with Kent county council is when it says that, in the last six months of the Conservative Government, it was processing 50 asylum

    1053
    seekers, while under this Government it is processing thousands every month. That is what has come out of Kent county council, and that is what matters.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Kent county council, short-changed by the Government by £4.5 million, has now been told by Home Office Ministers to go with its begging bowl to the Department of Social Security because the Home Office will not fork out? Is she also aware that it has been made plain by the Government this week that local authorities are expected to find, out of the public sector, 40 per cent. of the houses necessary to house asylum seekers? How does she think that they will do that?
    Miss Widdecombe: Not only that, but when the supposedly national system comes in, local authorities will remain responsible for people who have come through their systems and been dispersed elsewhere in the country. That is what Kent fears, and that is what other local authorities, which are particularly hard pressed by the chaos, also fear.
    Is it the case that the Local Government Association has called the Government's funding plans "grossly inadequate"? Is it true that the terms and conditions for the 1999–2000 grant have not yet been published, despite the fact that it is only eight weeks from the end of the financial year? Is it true that just 4,000 places are currently on offer against an estimate of 20,000 needed? I hope that the Home Secretary will answer. To say that that is many less than required would be a gross understatement. I am told that two regions have failed to offer any places at all. Again, will he confirm whether that is true?
    The Government need to explain why their plans are in chaos and what they now propose, for the problems will escalate if the backlogs and the number of asylum seekers arriving keep increasing and the accommodation available simply is not adequate. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), recently proposed £10,000 bonds for visitors from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, saying that her colleagues had been pressing for them. Such a measure may be popular on the Labour Benches, but we question the sense of imposing a bond in circumstances in which it is feared that the person—
    Mrs. Roche rose—
    Miss Widdecombe: Let me finish. The Minister will not know what she is intervening on if she does not hear the end of the sentence. We question the sense of imposing a bond in circumstances in which it is feared that the person will disappear. Surely it is better not to let such a person in at all. Although a bond may deter the genuine who cannot afford it, those who are determined to get round our laws now have a choice: pay racketeers to bring them in or pay the Home Office to let them in.
    Mrs. Roche: I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way. I sought to make an early intervention because she is eminently predictable; there are no surprises with her. She should not believe all she reads in The Sunday Telegraph. Her party did not speak
    1054
    out or vote against the proposal in Committee, so why does she come new to the issue? Clearly she has no idea of what is going on.
    Miss Widdecombe: It seems to me that the hon. Lady can tell us what is going on. Is there such a bond or not? If there is, will not it deter the genuine and make it terribly easy for those who are prepared to find the funds to get round our system?
    Mrs. Roche: I am happy to help the right hon. Lady with her research. The proposal was debated in Committee.
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
    Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Lady says yes, but clearly does not know that. The proposal was debated extensively and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) spoke on it. A consultation document was issued, inviting responses as to the level of the bond and where it should be applied. It was made clear that representations on visitors are often made from both sides of the House. She clearly thinks that the proposal is new and has completely failed to read the document. I am amazed that she has not done her research properly.
    Miss Widdecombe: I want a simple answer. You will have noted, Madam Speaker, that Labour Members love answers and call out, "Answer!" Will she answer? Is there such a bond?
    Mrs. Roche: Let me try, for the third time, to make the right hon. Lady understand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I am happy to answer. When we discussed the Bill in Committee—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.
    Mrs. Roche: I shall speak slowly for the right hon. Lady. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 contains powers for a bond system. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in Committee that we would issue a consultation document. That has been issued. Some Members of Parliament have received a copy and doubtless responded, but clearly she has not even seen one. We shall introduce a bond scheme and are consulting on it, but it would help if she read the documents.
    Miss Widdecombe: After all that, I think that we gather that there is a bond—in which case, all my comments stand.
    Mr. John Bercow: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend suggested that what might be called the bizarre bonds policy commanded widespread support on the Government Back Benches. Would she care to note for the record that it has incurred the justifiable wrath of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who might be described as the conscience of the London Labour party? Last Sunday, on BBC On-line, he said that the proposed policy was discriminatory and possibly illegal. That raises the question of whether he has "heavied" the Minister of State.
    Miss Widdecombe: That the policy is discriminatory is certainly true in the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

    1055
    I suspect that if we had proposed a measure that applied only to certain countries, involving a bond of such magnitude, we would have been denounced as racist. We would have been told that we were playing the race card.
    What we did was implement tough solutions that worked. We now propose further tough solutions, which will clear up the mess that the Government have made of the very good position that they inherited. There must be an end to amnesties that only encourage more people to present bogus asylum applications in the hope of benefiting from the next. We propose the automatic detention and fast-tracking of asylum applicants from safe countries, and those who arrive without papers. The genuine refugee will have nothing to fear; our plans are aimed at the bogus applicants and economic migrants who constitute the vast majority of those who apply.
    Currently, 71,000 applications for asylum are being made each year. The latest refusal rates are nearly 80 per cent., which means that tens of thousands of applicants have no right to be in this country, because they are not found to be genuine refugees. However, the Home Office's own figures show that only about 3,000 are being removed, and a similar number are leaving of their own volition. The Home Office admits that many of the remainder simply abscond and disappear.
    We therefore propose the establishment of a new removals agency with tough targets and a remit to trace, detain and remove those whose claims the judicial processes have duly rejected. The number of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who simply disappear is too high.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an agency will need the support of local police forces if it is to detect and detain illegal immigrants? What does she think of Home Office policy that has led to plans for the removal of 250 police officers from the Staffordshire force over the next three years? Even at its present level, the force is unable to detain illegal immigrants.
    Miss Widdecombe: That is why it may be necessary to extend powers of tracing beyond the police.
    It is undeniable, as the Kent constabulary have found, that the whole business of policing the results of illegal immigration and excessive bogus asylum seeking has put enormous strain on the force at a time when there are fewer police nation wide, police budgets have been slashed, and the police are finding it extremely difficult just to stand still, let alone to perform extra tasks.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Widdecombe: No.
    We must face the fact that efficient removals are part of the deterrent to those who would play our system. People who want to play the system need to know that if they come here, they are likely to be detained, that their claims will be dealt with expeditiously, and that they will
    1056
    then be duly removed. At present, the message is that if they come here and hang on long enough, they will probably benefit from an amnesty.
    Mr. Prosser rose—
    Dr. Iddon rose—
    Miss Widdecombe: I have made it clear that I want to make progress.
    Dr. Iddon: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady made her position clear a second ago.
    Miss Widdecombe: I must say that being asked to give way on the point on which I wish to make progress strikes me as rather odd.
    Dr. Iddon: Will the right hon. Lady give way on the issue of the amnesty?
    Miss Widdecombe: On the amnesty, yes.
    Dr. Iddon: If the right hon. Lady is so worried about the figures, why did her party allow an amnesty in 1992–93? Moreover, why did her party write off 26,000 asylum applicants? On both counts, why did it fail to tell Parliament?
    Miss Widdecombe: The straightforward answer is that we have learned from that mistake and this lot have not. Applications rose following an amnesty. Following tough solutions, they fell, so the first thing that the Government do is to propose an amnesty. It is completely illogical. Our straightforward position is that we have learned from past amnesties and there should be no future ones.
    I call on the Government to say whether they agree that there should be no future amnesties. Are they leaping up to say whether there will be any? They are not. Presumably, they do not dare.
    Those are just some of the measures that we propose. By contrast, the Government are all talk and no delivery. On asylum and immigration, as on many other issues, they have said one thing and done another. They have lost their grip on the situation and are flirting with desperate measures and gimmicks, rather than taking the necessary tough decisions that are required to sort the situation out.
    The Home Secretary and his Ministers are guilty of grave misjudgment, staggering mismanagement and horrendous incompetence. [Laughter.] Laughter greets that. There was rather an embarrassed silence when the Home Secretary explained why he could not even get a relevant amendment on to the Order Paper today.
    Therefore, the House and the country should not be surprised when things get worse—as they will—rather than better, under the Government. I commend not only the motion, but the measures that we took and will take. Not only the House, but the country has realised that, under the Government, there is to be nothing except what they are getting: rising asylum applications; failure to control the backlog, which the Government trumpeted as a flagship measure; failure to remove those who are found to have no

    1057
    grounds on which to stay; failure to help local authorities that are picking up the bill for the Home Secretary's incompetence; and a general failure throughout the system.
    One fact remains. In our last full year in government, asylum applications fell by nearly 40 per cent. They have risen by 130 per cent. under the present Government. If it had gone the other way, the Home Secretary would have taken the credit. Let him not try to pass the blame to his officials, his fax machine, or the immigration service. Let him take responsibility for the mess that he has inflicted on this country.
    4.18 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): After that speech, Madam Speaker, you might have done the House a favour if you had allowed the Government amendment, because the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) covered the same ground as she covered on 26 October, but less well. What I now regret is that the parliamentary department in the Home Office did not fax over that speech as well as our amendment—she could have just read it out.
    I am always ready to hold a serious debate on the important issue of immigration and asylum, but a serious contribution to that debate was the last thing that we heard from the right hon. Lady. Instead, we heard a speech that was as confused in its analysis as it was empty of any serious propositions to deal fairly and firmly with those who apply for asylum in this country.
    The right hon. Lady's bare-faced opportunism is best shown by the extraordinary lurches in policy over which she has presided, first in government and then in opposition. Today, we hear that she is on the side of toughness, yet she is the same shadow Home Secretary who, just three months ago, backed a Conservative amendment in the other place to restore social security cash payments to all asylum seekers, at a cost of £500 million a year—an amendment that she described as both common sense and sensible. She is the same shadow Home Secretary who, despite the thousands of clandestines entering the UK, smuggled through our ports in the backs of lorries, has sided with negligent or complicit hauliers by opposing the civil penalty against those truck drivers and owners who fail to take any reasonable precautions to stop people gaining access to their trucks.
    The right hon. Lady now talks about those who are facilitating bogus asylum seekers. However, she is the same shadow Home Secretary who, when Minister with responsibility for immigration and confronted with mounting evidence of the connection between the serious criminals who traffic in unfounded asylum seekers and the unscrupulous immigration advisers and solicitors who help them manufacture their claims in the United Kingdom, did absolutely nothing. Worse, when the Government were in opposition and we tabled amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to control those unscrupulous immigration advisers, what was her response? It was not to say, "Yes, we have a problem and should introduce controls", but to wash her hands of the problem and to reject those controls.
    Miss Widdecombe: Currently, some lorry drivers are discovering that, against their best endeavours, they have
    1058
    people in their loads who should not be there. Until the right hon. Gentleman introduced the new measures, those lorry drivers were able to feel quite secure in reporting that fact to the authorities. Is he aware that I have been receiving letters from lorry drivers who have done that in the past, but who say that, in future, they would be very wary of reporting it to the authorities in case they were faced with a fine for their pains?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been plenty of instances of illegal entrants being detected, claiming asylum—naturally—and then being issued with a voucher and told to go to Croydon, but never getting to Croydon? He has said that there have been no solid proposals from us. Does he not accept that a proposal for automatic detention in such cases would solve an awful lot?
    Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the right hon. Lady's point on detention in a moment. However, her first point was absolutely extraordinary. The proposition she is advancing is that if a haulier has 20, 30 or 40 clandestines—not one or two, typically—secreted in the back of his lorry, he should be under no duty before his lorry is put on the ferry to check whether those clandestines are there. That is her proposition.
    The Government are proposing a sensible and fair system under which, if hauliers take the reasonable precautions specified in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, they will not incur a penalty; but if they do not, they will. I think that that system is accepted by the whole of the British people except—extraordinarily—the right hon. Lady.
    The burden of the right hon. Lady's speech is that the unexpected increase in asylum seekers that occurred in 1999 is the consequence solely of the Government's approach to the issue. However, on that puerile analysis, Douglas Hurd and Kenneth Baker were entirely to blame not for a doubling of asylum seekers, as happened last year, but for the tenfold increase in asylum seekers that occurred at the beginning of the 1990s. Moreover, on her analysis, the fact that the Berlin wall had come down and communism had collapsed in the intervening period was only a minor irrelevance.
    We do face—as do all other prosperous nations—a significant problem of unfounded asylum seekers who are in truth simply economic migrants. However, if we look down the list of the top countries, what do we find? We find the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan—which together last year accounted for almost 31,000 asylum applicants; more than 40 per cent. of the total. Even the right hon. Lady would find it difficult to deny that each of those countries has faced severe upheaval of one sort or another, and that many of the applications from those countries are genuine and well-founded.
    Mr. Michael Howard: If that is the Home Secretary's defence, how does he explain the fact that last year the number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom increased by 98 per cent., whereas the number of asylum seekers in Germany decreased by 3 per cent?
    Mr. Straw: I am happy to explain that point. Some, but not all, European countries faced similar and, in some cases, larger increases than the United Kingdom.

    1059
    Germany still has a higher number of applicants in absolute terms than we do, but the figure is diminishing. The reason for that is that some years ago Germany put in place the systems of control that we are introducing and made the necessary investment that we need to make in order to make good the failure over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald presided.
    Mr. Gale: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that in October 1997 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I visited the Home Office on the advice of the police, who had told us that there would be an influx of 3,000 illegal immigrants from the Czech and Slovak Republics? Does he deny that we asked then for visa restrictions to be imposed? Does he deny that his junior Minister said that there was not a problem and nor was there likely to be? Does he deny that it took him a year to introduce a visa requirement for the Slovak Republic? Does he deny that he has still done nothing about the Czech Republic? Does not all that show that the Government are seen by others as a soft touch?
    Mr. Straw: No, the Government have not been seen as a soft touch. We have to consider the problem of playing the race card. We need a swifter system to deal with well-founded applications, but we have to be careful in our use of language. I gave the figures for the four countries that I mentioned because under the 1951 convention, which the Conservatives have observed just as we have, we are obliged to consider every application on its merits, regardless of whether the applicant comes from a country that is currently on the white list or one from which only a tiny proportion of applicants—or even none—have been accepted for asylum.
    Miss Widdecombe: Of course.
    Mr. Straw: Yes, but the natural consequence of the emotive language that is used is that we should somehow abrogate our responsibilities under that treaty. The Conservatives have to accept that 40 per cent. of the large increase that we have faced comes from countries that, on any analysis, have suffered the most serious political upheaval and violence that any of us could imagine.
    During the past two years only 2 per cent. of applicants from China have been granted leave to stay, but only three months ago the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and many Conservative Members condemned China during its President's state visit for its record on human rights, indirectly giving encouragement to all claimants from that country.
    The right hon. Lady claims that numbers would be under control if we had followed the policy and approach of the Government of whom she was a member. She rests a large part of her case on the fact that numbers had started to go down as her Administration left office. If the 1996 Act was so good, why has it produced such poor results? The stark truth is that all the increase in asylum seekers about which she protests occurred under a legal and administrative framework that the Conservatives laid down.
    1060
    The dip in numbers in late 1996 and 1997 came about after the previous Administration removed any entitlement to welfare support or benefit for those who applied in-country. However, one of the Conservatives many failures was not thinking through what they were doing. They were bound to be faced with a judicial review of that decision, which resulted in the policy being overturned by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. That badly thought-through policy resulted in a huge burden being placed on local authorities—not spread evenly throughout the country, but principally in Kent and London—to provide support for those who applied in-country. The restoration of that support is one reason why numbers started to rise.
    Mr. James Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Straw: In a moment.
    I remind the right hon. Lady—who, even by her standards, seems extraordinarily poorly briefed—that for the time being the 1996 Act remains binding on the Government. We are replacing most of its provisions by more streamlined and effective measures in the new legislation, but until they are implemented, the 1996 Act remain in force—including the so-called white list which she claimed we had already abolished.
    The right hon. Lady also claims that the Government have somehow encouraged the increase. That is a complete travesty of the facts. There has been and there will be no amnesty. The arrangements in the White Paper for dealing with the backlog of cases which had been waiting for an initial decision—not during our period in government, but since 1993—reflect the reality of those cases. New applicants have been in no doubt that their applications will be considered in the usual way.
    The difference between Labour and Conservative is that we announced the policy for dealing with that backlog, but until this afternoon, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), never before has the right hon. Lady or any Conservative Member admitted that they had any policy to deal with the backlog from 1992–93, that it was an amnesty, and that it was a mistake. They were so ashamed of that amnesty that they failed to report it to Parliament. I wrote to the right hon. Lady three times last year asking her to accept responsibility for what happened and three times she failed properly to answer. The simple fact is that in 1992–93, under her amnesty, 26,000 people were granted exceptional leave to remain, compared with fewer than 6,000 in the years around that period.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he is dealing in simple facts, the simple fact is that he inherited from us a backlog approaching 50,000, which he described at the time as scandalous. The backlog now stands at 102,000. The whole of that increase has occurred under his administration. Will he take responsibility for that increase?
    Mr. Straw: Of course I take responsibility for what has happened under my administration. I have never denied that. It is part of my role. In my very first speech as Home Secretary I said that I would take responsibility for what happened under my administration and my holding of

    1061
    this office. I invite the right hon. Lady to accept that we are not in the era of Pol Pot and 1 May 1997 was not year zero. What happened before may just have some bearing on the circumstances and systems that we inherited.
    The right hon. Lady complained today, as she has in previous years, about the pressure on asylum seekers in her county of Kent. In her conference speech last year, she even had the audacity to say:
    "I went to Dover myself, saw the effects of the government's disgraceful concentration of asylum seekers on the town."
    Yet she was the Minister responsible for the shambolic arrangements which have piled the pressure on Dover and other towns in Kent—keeping social security cash benefits and housing benefit for port applicants, with all the incentive for sucking in unfounded applications which they provide—and then forcing Kent and London local councils to bear the brunt of supporting almost every other applicant who applies in-country and then, on top of that, proposing an extra £500 million in social security cash handouts. What sort of message did that £500 million in unnecessary cash handouts send to asylum seekers?
    Mr. Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage that the right hon. Lady did in Dover when she pirouetted through Pencester gardens? At a time when Labour Members were trying to quell social tensions and solve community problems, she came along surrounded by television cameras, looking for a quick soundbite and a headline. Is she aware of the terrible damage that she did on that day?
    Mr. Straw: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has undertaken in Dover and in the surrounding area. Secondly, I point out to the right hon. Lady that the Liberal Democrat amendment—which is better than a curate's egg, although I am sorry that I cannot accept all of it—includes an important reference to the statement signed by all party leaders on the need for those of us who hold office to conduct our debates and arguments in a way that does not damage race relations.
    When I listen to the language used by the right hon. Lady and examine some of the things that she has done and her complete evasion of responsibility for what has happened in Kent and in Dover, I wonder whether she does not come perilously close to what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) invited his party to do—to use immigration as an election issue.
    Some of us remember all too well the hon. Gentleman's chilling words when he was the head of the Conservative research department. He stated that immigration was "an issue which we"—the Conservative party—
    "raised successfully in 1992 and in the 1994 European election campaign. It played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt."
    The hon. Gentleman was talking about hurting the Labour party, but that language—that sort of invitation—does not hurt our party nearly as much as it hurts people from black and Asian communities. It hurts genuine asylum seekers, as well as those who are not.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those who suffer most from the failing asylum system are the genuine asylum seekers, who, as I said in my speech, need a rapid and safe haven? They are at the centre of our wish to have a streamlined and
    1062
    effective asylum system. Is it really his view that, when asylum applications and the backlog have doubled, it is improper for the Opposition to criticise the Government for that, to point out why it happened and to make our own proposals for rectifying it? Is he saying that to do that is to come perilously close to racist language? Let him grow up.
    Mr. Straw: For five years, we have been asking for the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to withdraw those remarks, or for them to be disowned by Opposition Front-Bench Members. I am looking forward to that.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he cares to look back, he will find that my remarks were made entirely in the context of the Labour party's policy in both the 1992 and the 1994 elections. He will remember that policy well; it was to extend a right of residence in the United Kingdom to everybody who enjoys the right of residence in other EU countries. He knows that that was a damaging policy—as we argued in both elections. He acknowledged that and dropped the policy.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me or my constituency—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I think that one bite of the cherry is sufficient.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire protests too much. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
    Mr. Clappison: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. May I take him back to the collapse in the administrative machinery at the Home Office that is at the root of the problem? Last March, he told the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill that he was taking personal responsibility for that machinery and that it was the most important task that he faced. Since then, the backlog has grown by a further 30,000; it is now more than 100,000 and growing every month. When will he bring that matter under control? When will the backlog start to go down?
    Mr. Straw: Later in my speech, I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures that spell out how, after a period of considerable difficulty, the processing of asylum applications, as well as the casework on other immigration applications, is improving.
    Mr. David Winnick: Like my right hon. Friend, I have no time for bogus asylum seekers. Is it not true that time and again the Tory party has played the race card—including an onslaught on the ancestors of several Members sitting on the Tory Benches?
    Mr. Straw: I bow to the greater historical knowledge of my hon. Friend.
    What, above all, gives lie to the posture of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is the Opposition's record during the passage of our Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. She calls today for a huge extension of detention, yet at no stage did those on

    1063
    the Conservative Front Bench or any Member of the Opposition table such an amendment during the passage of the Act. She calls now for a continuation of the white list, yet those on the Conservative Front Bench were evidently so satisfied with our alternative to the white list that they did not even seek to debate the proposals in the Act, still less to vote to against them.
    Twice in the space of three years the Conservative Government tried to reform the asylum system. If their first Act—the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993—had worked, the second would not have been necessary. Dramatically short turn-around times in processing applications were promised when the Act was considered in 1992. The then Home Secretary promised that many applications would be turned around in 10 days.
    The 1993 Act failed, so the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) had to introduce the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. He admitted what has now happened. He said:
    "Unless we take firm action now … Home Office projections show that the number claiming asylum will rise to at least 8,000 a month—almost 100,000 a year—by the end of the decade."
    It was fundamentally because of the failure of the 1996 Act that we decided that the system needed root-and-branch reform. Following a comprehensive review of the system, our White Paper set out the provisions for that reform.
    The 1999 Act, unlike the provisions of the previous Administration, will deliver a single, comprehensive right of appeal. It will create a new asylum support system to replace the current shambles and it will regulate immigration advisers to eradicate the unscrupulous who exploit and cheat vulnerable applicants. It will strengthen the power of the immigration service to target the criminal facilitators who profit from the traffic in clandestine and illegal immigration.
    At the time of our 1998 White Paper, asylum applications were projected to increase to 44,000 in the current financial year, but we now expect to receive more than 80,000. As I spelled out in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, numbers in many other countries have increased to a similar degree. The Republic of Ireland, proportionate to its population, has seen a huge increase, and so has Finland. Under figures just released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, per head of population Britain is not at the top of the league tables; it is ninth. That fact needs to be taken into account if we are to have a balanced and sensible debate about the well-founded and unfounded problems of asylum seekers.
    Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman's predictions seem as likely to be fulfilled as was Billy Bunter's postal order to arrive. Given that thousands of asylum seekers habitually disappear when their applications are turned down, can he explain why the Home Office target for the removal of such people in 1999–2000 is only 8,000, even though the applications of many times that number are rejected each year? Is not his policy—pusillanimous as it is—a recipe for a constant, on-going increase in the number of people staying here who should not be staying here?
    Mr. Straw: I am not entirely clear to which figures the hon. Gentleman refers. Total removals in the last financial
    1064
    year were 35,200, which happens to be up on the total number of removals in the last year of the previous Government, which was 28,000. Let me make it clear that I accept that we need to do much more to expand enforcement and removal activity. That is one thing that we propose to do. However, we start from a very low base because the previous Administration effectively collapsed the staffing of the immigration and nationality directorate by taking the astonishing risk that all the savings that were promised, but never delivered, under the old contract would be available.
    The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was at her most extravagant when it came to criticism of the increase in the backlog of asylum applications. Part of the reason for that increase is the higher than expected volume of applications to which I have already referred. However, it is also significantly the result—if I accept responsibility for what happens under this Administration, the right hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe have to accept responsibility for what happened under theirs—of the contract that she signed with Siemens for the delivery of so-called business change in the immigration and nationality directorate. That contract is binding on the Government. At its signature, Home Office Ministers described it as
    "a unique opportunity for the transformation of the IND."
    It certainly had a transforming effect. As I have already said, the Public Accounts Committee recently described it as
    "over-ambitious from the outset".
    The previous Administration even made provisions for a redundancy programme to get rid of people before they had any savings in their pockets. We reversed the redundancy programme, but unfortunately by then the IND had lost valuable caseworking expertise.
    I can tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere that since last summer, we have begun a massive recruitment programme to boost staff numbers. We are taking on 850 extra staff. They include 250 asylum decision-makers, who have already been recruited, and more are planned. We are close to achieving 4,000 asylum decisions a month, and we are aiming to make 8,000 a month by the late spring. All that takes time, but even at current intake levels those additional resources should enable us to make major inroads into the backlog.
    I pay particular tribute to the staff of the IND. They have made a massive effort to recover its business from the depths of last year. That commitment and the additional resources that we are providing will help to consolidate the recovery.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I echo the Home Secretary's tribute to the staff who deal with that huge amount of work. However, the present system gives rise to serious concern about the work that is being done. Does he accept that some of those who sit on tribunals as adjudicators are not working at all at the moment because they are not being given any cases? That is because some of the files that have been transferred from Lunar house to the Whitgift centre as part of the great reorganisation are sitting in a basement, untouched because they are said to be surrounded by

    1065
    asbestos; they are not being processed at all. Is not it still the case that the system is not working, even though many people want to do the work?
    Mr. Straw: I accept that the system is certainly not working as well or as fully as it should, and it will be some time before it is working fully. However, it is getting better. There has been a significant improvement in the departments and arrangements for which I am responsible and those for which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible.
    Mr. Humfrey Matins rose—
    Mr. Clappison rose—
    Mr. Straw: I have given way a great deal. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make progress.
    We have set a target that from April 2001 most initial asylum decisions will be made within two months, and most appeals decided within a further four months. We remain committed to those targets. Indeed, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friends that we are already meeting those targets for families with children. Following a debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, we have given priority to such applications, and since November most of them have been decided within two months.
    The interim asylum support scheme is already in place and there has been much more dispersal as a result, easing pressures on London and the south-east. The full scheme will come into force from April 2000. Support, mainly in kind, will then be provided with minimal cash. Dispersal will be on a no-choice basis as regards location.
    Returning to removals, at the end of last year I announced our plans to open a new reception centre for asylum seekers at Oakington, near Cambridge, providing up to 400 additional places. Applicants who are transferred to Oakington will be required to reside there for about seven days while their claim is decided, and their application will fall to be refused on non-compliance grounds if they leave without permission.
    Subject to relevant permissions being granted, new detention facilities are also already planned for Aldington in Kent, Heathrow airport and Lindholme, near Doncaster. Those alone will create an additional 400 places and will reduce the immigration service's dependence on places in Prison Service establishments. A further expansion in the immigration service's detention estate, to cope with the increasing number of removals that we are expecting to achieve, is under active consideration, along with the establishment of reporting centres, which will ensure that contact is maintained with applicants throughout the process.
    Mr. Malins: I am very concerned about the question of removals. I ask the Home Secretary carefully to check his figures for 1998–99 and for how many are expected in future. Official figures that I have obtained show that in 1998, only 350 failed asylum seekers left as a result of deportation. That figure was in a written answer, which I can show him now.
    Mr. Straw: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the figure cannot be as low as 350. As soon
    1066
    as I have finished my speech, I will get the information to which he is referring and ensure that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Homsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), deals the matter when she replies to the debate. I can tell him that, in the current financial year, 35,200 people have been removed from this country.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No, I have dealt with the matter.
    Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the matter; I have the figures here.
    Mr. Straw: I have dealt with the matter. I am always concerned to ensure that there is agreement on figures, but that cannot be reached across the Floor of the House. There is a huge difference between 350 and 35,200, which needs to be sorted out—the figure is certainly not 350—in more detailed discussion. Perhaps I should invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to establish a numeracy hour for Conservative Members.
    I come to the issue of charges for clandestines. In 1987, the previous Government introduced civil penalties, at £2,000 a passenger, on airlines that carried passengers who had inadequate documentation and no permission to enter the UK. That system has worked, but there is a gaping loophole in its scope because it does not extend to buses, coaches or trucks. Partly as a result of that, there has been a huge increase in the number of clandestine asylum seekers coming through sea ports, particularly Dover—something else that has added to the pressure on that port.
    Under our new Act, we are extending the civil penalty to bus and coach carriers, and creating a new civil penalty for all clandestines found in the back of freight trucks. The system will work fairly for those who take the necessary precautions. I fail to understand how, on one hand, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald can use the emotive language of calling us a soft touch, while on the other opposing such a common-sense policy, which builds on the controls that the Conservatives initiated.
    Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Not least because of a large immigration case load as a constituency member, I am well aware that the service that the IND has been providing to hon. Members has fallen short of the standard that they have a right to expect. We are determined to correct that. In order to provide a much better system through which hon. Members and their staff are able to contact the IND, a new dedicated telephone service has been established. Staff will be available between 9 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock in the evening to answer the inquiries of hon. Members and their staff and to check the progress of any case. Where a case is found to be straightforward and can be easily resolved, that will be done, and quickly.

    1067
    To return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am pleased to say that the position in the integrated casework directorate, which deals with non-asylum matters, is improving. More than 60 per cent. of applications are resolved within a few days of arrival, all public callers in Croydon are seen on the same day, and about 800 Home Office travel documents are delivered each week, compared with 100 a week in August.
    We recognise the scale of the task to restore the integrity of the asylum and immigration system. There can be no quick fix, and we have never promised one. We are putting in place the foundations to ensure that the system is fairer, faster and firmer. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should, over time, deliver real changes. We are devoting the resources needed to deliver substantially higher output. Against the degradation of the system under the previous Government, we are investing an additional £120 million in the immigration and nationality directorate over this and the next two years.
    If the changes introduced by the Conservatives—their two flawed Acts, their computerisation that went wrong and their staff cuts—had worked, the major reforms on which we are embarked would not have been necessary. However, they are necessary, and it is a mark of the continued policy failure of the Conservatives that their contribution to our legislation was not to strengthen it, but to weaken it by opposing penalties on hauliers with clandestine entrants hidden on their lorries and by calling for a £500 million extension of cash payments to asylum seekers.
    We are getting on with restoring the asylum and immigration system to proper integrity, so as to ensure that it deals firmly, fairly and swiftly with asylum and immigration applications. We are repairing the damage that the previous Government did to that system with their cuts in staff, their computerisation and their failure to provide proper financing. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, I can tell her that the British people will need far more than the nonsense that she served up this afternoon if the Conservatives are ever again to be elected to govern.
    4.56 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "believes that both the last Government and the present Government have failed to respond properly to the asylum, immigration and nationality demands made of this country; is aware of widespread discontent with the delays in processing immigration applications and that the number of unprocessed asylum applications has doubled over the previous two years to a total of over 100,000; takes very seriously the Seventh Report of the Committee of Public Accounts (HC 130), which criticises the Government's mismanagement of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the fears of local authorities about the practical difficulties associated with the asylum-seekers dispersal scheme; calls upon the Government, which has now been in office for over a thousand days, to take more effective and urgent action to reduce the backlog of unprocessed applications and to improve the effectiveness of decision-making; believes that the necessary staff should be employed immediately so that good-quality decisions can be made quickly, and that the interests of applicants and taxpayers alike can be met in a system which treats every applicant fairly; and supports the Commission
    1068
    for Racial Equality agreement, signed by all three major party leaders, not to use problems in the immigration and asylum systems in ways which could damage community and race relations.".
    It comes as an unexpected pleasure and surprise that, for the first time in my years as a Member of Parliament, on a Conservative Supply day, a Liberal or Liberal Democrat amendment has been selected for debate. At the end of the debate, the choice will be between one Conservative policy and one Liberal Democrat policy, which might explain why the Government amendment was not selected—if it had been, the choice would have been between two conservative policies.
    The Home Secretary was kind enough to alert my office to the fact that there had been a technical hitch with the Government amendment. As I told him just before the debate stated, we had already noticed that something had clearly gone wrong because we had seen the Government's amendment on a previous occasion and voted against it then. I know that the Government suffer from amnesia, but to put the same amendment before the House twice in three months strikes me as somewhat excessive. However, it is not inappropriate that, in a debate on the poor administration of the Home Office, the Home Office has not even managed to get the right amendment on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Straw: I thought that he would say that.
    Mr. Hughes: I thought that the Home Secretary would think that I would say that. As I told him previously, I hope for his sake that things can only get better.
    I have been looking back at debates on what became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In large measure, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), dealt with that legislation for the Liberal Democrats. On Second Reading in the House of Lords, the current Attorney-General, then a Home Office Minister, said:
    "Immigration and asylum are among the most sensitive and difficult issues. Decisions in individual cases can mean the difference between life and death … We want to uphold this country's long-standing tradition of giving shelter to those who flee persecution."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 1999; Vol. 603, c. 177.]
    I start on a non-partisan and non-party political note by saying that our job when we debate such issues is to rise above jingoistic politics, which are often too easily resorted to. We must try to deal with a matter that is hugely important, not only to all our constituencies, but nationally and internationally. Over the generations, many of the great contributors to British life have been the children of immigrants. Many of those who have given most have been the descendants of refugees. Many Members of Parliament have sprung from families who fled persecution in other parts of the world.
    I entirely concur with the Government in saying that it is not normally the attitude, behaviour or competence of the UK Government that is the largest single determinant of the number of people applying to settle in this country, either as immigrants or as asylum seekers. They come here principally because of the politics and pressures prevalent in other places in the world. We are not immune from those pressures, nor should we be. We have to behave responsibly and play our proper part in the world.

    1069
    It is quite wrong of the Conservative Opposition to suggest that the number of asylum seekers shows whether the Government are a soft touch. I heard the Leader of the Conservative Opposition make his allegations today. The number of applications from people coming to Britain has gone up, as it has in almost every other country in Europe, for self-evident reasons. Only someone who has not read a newspaper or watched a television news bulletin in the past 10 years would imagine otherwise.
    Mr. Howard: Did not the hon. Gentleman listen to the Home Secretary? Did not he hear the Home Secretary say, in answer to my question about the fall in the number of asylum applications in Germany, that the reason for that fall is the fact that there are effective arrangements in Germany for dealing with asylum applications? In other words—the Home Secretary did not use these words, but it comes to the same thing—he said that the number of applications had fallen in Germany because Germany was no longer a soft touch.
    Mr. Hughes: Those were not the words that the Home Secretary used. I listened to the exchange. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is a former Home Secretary, knows that immigration into Germany during the 1990s was often from countries immediately to the east of it and from Turkey in large measure. The pattern of immigration to Germany in the past few years was different from the pattern of immigration to Britain.
    Of course, the measures taken by a country have an effect. The Home Secretary was right in what he said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The pattern across Europe is revealed by the figures for the 13 European countries, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can obtain from the Library, just as I did. The UK rate for asylum applications last year per head of population was 9.8 per 100,000, compared to an average of 9.5 per 100,000. Germany had a slightly higher number last year than we had. Yes, its rate is now going down, and yes, ours is going up, but it would not be wise or reasonable to suggest that that is entirely or largely due to the measures adopted by the country in question. They are a factor—
    Mr. Howard: That is what the Home Secretary said.
    Mr. Hughes: I do not believe that, and the record will show that that was not the case. I was present for the exchange between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary.
    The Home Secretary has on previous occasions accused me and other colleagues of being woolly liberals. Many of us who deal with immigration and asylum matters are far from woolly liberals about those issues. We have constituencies with huge numbers of asylum seekers and immigrants. I checked the figure this morning. There are just under 3,000 refugees being looked after by my local authority, and large numbers in my constituency. My office receives a significant number of new immigration cases every day, as do those of some of my hon. Friends around the country.
    We come to the issue first from our constituency experience. That is why we are critical of the present system. People can wait for up to six years for their cases
    1070
    to be dealt with. People hand in their passport for a new permission to stay to be approved, and they do not see their passport for weeks, months or sometimes years. Documents handed in are lost and not found. Documents are not returned. One Department does not know that another Department has transferred the case to it to be dealt with. The case does not get to the tribunal for weeks to be dealt with so that the appeal can be heard, because the papers get lost in the system.
    Those are administrative problems, but behind them are real people with real concerns. There are people in refugee camps waiting to join their families. There are people who want to come on a visit, like the person who wanted to come from Sierra Leone to see his dying mother but never made it because the system would not process the application in time, and the mother died while he was still waiting for his case to be dealt with in Sierra Leone.
    From all over the world, the experience is that the system is not working. That is not in the interest of the asylum seeker or the rest of the community, because it builds up the number of people who are literally waiting in a queue, some of them on our doorstep, and it builds up the cost.
    Let us be clear that none of us in this country is being overrun by immigrants or asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and his constituents, and those in London boroughs have borne the brunt of large numbers, but compared with many countries and the numbers with which they deal regularly, asylum seekers constitute a small additional burden on this country. A rich, western country should be able to deal with that competently and fairly.
    It is true that there have been significant increases in numbers in recent years. The Home Secretary was right to say that we must be careful to get the facts right. Approximately one third of asylum seekers are accepted for settlement on the first request. After appeal, approximately half are accepted. It is not an abuse of a system for people to try, even if they are rejected. That is why the system exists. It is comparable to a court. It is not an abuse of the jury system for someone to want to go to Crown court, and it is not an abuse of the immigration system for someone to try to come to Britain. In both instances, some cases are turned down.
    Of course, some people enter the country illegally, and they should not; others remain illegally, and they should not. However, we should not punish those who often come from traumatic backgrounds simply because others try to sneak through when they should not. Doing that is comparable to punishing 25 good pupils in a classroom for the behaviour of five naughty pupils. That is not the right way to run a system; indeed, it would be illegal.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's use of the words "abusive" and "bogus" is unhelpful? Those expressions whip up the media. An unsuccessful applicant for a job is not necessarily a bogus applicant. If applicants are refused entry, it simply means that they have not fulfilled the IND's strict criteria. The terms "bogus" and "abusive" also attach blame to people who are fleeing or trying to better themselves.
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. In his short time in the House, he has gained huge experience of immigration matters, not least because Campsfield is in his constituency.

    1071
    Let us consider the international background. We should not duck the facts: this continent is experiencing the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. There are 1 million displaced people in Europe. European applications have increased by 20 per cent. in the past year. Our figures tell a story: the largest number of applicants come from former Yugoslavia. That is not an accident, but the consequence of civil war. People come here after losing their families, homes and everything they ever possessed. There are hundreds and thousands of people in refugee camps in southern Europe. I have visited central Africa, where there were refugee camps of tens of thousands of people. We must consider our position against that perspective.
    As the Home Secretary said, we signed the United Nations convention in 1951. There has since been an updating protocol. The key element of the convention is that this country must treat every case on its merits. That is the test. We must look at every case, without lists for fast treatment and lists for slow treatment, or cursory treatment for some and not for others. All asylum seekers, no matter where they come from, must be considered on their merits.
    The Liberal Democrats believe in a firm and fair immigration policy, which must be non-racist and non-discriminatory. There should also be a policy on asylum, and it should honour our legal and moral obligations, not deter or penalise genuine asylum seekers. Ultimately, we must be able to say that when somebody needed us, we were there; that when people justifiably needed to come to Britain, we let them in. We join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to those in the IND who have laboured under huge pressure and who are almost always as helpful as possible.
    I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had to leave the Chamber; she apologised to me before she left. The criticisms are therefore made in her absence, but they apply to the motion.
    Three documents show clearly that the current problems preceded this Government. I pray in aid those documents, all of which are available to hon. Members and date from last year. The first is the evidence given to the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill in the spring of 1999 by the Public and Commercial Services Union, which described the problem with which it was trying to deal. It said that it believed
    "that the Committee's consideration of these provisions"—
    that is, those in the Bill—
    "needs to be fully informed as to why the time limits set appear to be wholly unrealistic. The grounds for this belief include:

    —the rise in the asylum backlog during 1998

    —the reduction in IND staff during the same period, in preparation for the 'computerisation' of casework …

    —the delay in the delivery of the I.T. system

    —the transitional problems currently being experienced in IND and their repercussions in the medium term

    —doubts about the anticipated longer-term efficiency gain…

    —the insufficiency of the additional funds made available to IND following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review."

    1072
    The PCS concluded that it
    "firmly believes that unless the implementation of these provisions are accompanied by the investment of significant additional resources in the form of extra staff, further delays and backlogs are inevitable, jeopardising not only the viability of this particular strategy but the main aims of the Bill, in general."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 448–49.]
    That was the union's evidence and it was clear.
    As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is clearly aware, the Public Accounts Committee more recently produced two other relevant documents in the autumn. One looked into the Home Office IND casework programme and the other was on improving the delivery of Government information technology projects. They are both damning indictments of the system as set up, the failure to provide the resources and to plan for an increase in the number of people who would arrive, and the absolutely mad—those are my words—decision to move the whole operation while changing the operating system and at the peak of demand.
    If ever anything was bound to have caused complete confusion and add to the backlog—and it did—it was that administrative change last year. The incompetence and failure to plan adequately began under the Tories and they failed. The number of people who were not picked up and should have been and who were told to leave but were not deported was no better under the Conservative Government than it is now, and the system was no more competent, as I know from personal experience. Therefore, it is a bit rich to say that the problem is the fault of this Government since 1997.
    However, the PAC did not let the Government off the hook. The PAC and its report made it abundantly clear that the Government did not respond quickly or adequately enough and that they could have done. The PAC was very critical indeed. The truth of the matter is that every increase in the number of cases that are not dealt with increases the trauma of the person in the queue, who may be a valid immigrant seeking asylum, as well as having two other harmful effects. It increases community tension—the longer the queue and the larger the pool of people, the more tensions and pressures are put on the system. As great a folly, however, is that it costs everyone more.
    The PAC made the case explicitly. The cost of processing an application is of the order of £400. The cost per month of keeping a family here in the queue is of the order of £1,000 more than that. Therefore, it is in no one's interests to have a huge number of people waiting and we do not have the resources to deal with them. It was a terrible mistake not to have anticipated these problems, as the Government failed to do, and not to have provided resources and investment.
    Sometimes when we argue about resources, for example for the health service, the Government reasonably say, "Well it takes three years to train a nurse and seven to train a doctor, so we can't suddenly sort out all the problems." The Home Secretary knows that it takes between three and six months to train people to deal competently with IND cases in the Home Office and that after that time those people will be as competent as those who were dealing with them before. The system can be turned around quickly. It is not an impossible task and it must be tackled.
    I have some questions and propositions for the Government. There are still huge pressures on the system. First, we need to know whether the cost of the system that

    1073
    the Government have introduced—the asylum support directorate national system, which will come into force in April—is still per person or per unit administratively much more expensive than the system that is being replaced. If that is the case, it will have immediate knock-on implications for additional resources.
    Secondly, the Home Secretary said a moment ago that he still hoped that most of the cases could be dealt with in the target of two months by April next year—four months for appeal cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? Are the Government on course to deliver that target? From now on, will the backlog reduce and the target time come nearer?
    Thirdly, we always criticise the Government for choosing the waiting list test for hospital beds and treatment. The number of people on the list matters little. What matters is how long one waits. The issue is not how big is the backlog, but how long one must wait for one's case to be heard. What is the present average length of wait for a case to be dealt with? If that is not decreasing, we are not winning the battle. If the time that one has to wait for one's case to be processed and for an appeal to be dealt with is not decreasing, we are not moving forward.
    Finally, there is great concern about the provisions for local authorities and their ability to provide under the interim system dispersal places for asylum seekers. The authorities are keen to help, but they do not appear to have come up with places. There is even greater concern that after April there will not be places to enable the new system to work. When the Minister of State replies I should be grateful if she told us how far short we are of the number of guaranteed places that are necessary if dispersal is to happen. It is no good to plan the dispersal of refugees from Kent, south London or Islington if there are no places to receive them. That is not an acceptable policy and it must be changed.
    Our position as expressed in our amendment is straightforward. We believe that one must start by trying to reduce globally the number of people who become refugees. Good foreign policy, diplomacy and conflict resolution will play their part in reducing the sorts of crises that we have recently seen on our continent. Those require us to work internationally and not put our head in the sand and be little nationalists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, it is no good Conservatives using language that suggests that everything will be fine so long as we look after our own and that anyone else can come second.
    We have to be ruthless about reducing the waiting times. That is in everyone's interests, not least those of the taxpayer, and that has to be a priority.
    Also, we are nearing the Budget. The Prime Minister always accuses my hon. Friends and me of wanting more money. The truth of the matter is that investment now in good-quality staff to process the cases in the system will save money in the medium and longer term. There has been movement in that direction, but if we are to make progress, the Chancellor must put his hand into the contingency reserve in the Budget, and the comprehensive spending review needs to produce more money for the IND. We find money quickly when there is a war in Kuwait or southern Europe, for example. We have no problem with paying for the troops to go there. When a war somewhere else has a knock-on effect for us, however, we find it more difficult to respond.
    1074
    Finally, as the Home Secretary was kind enough to say, the former leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), signed with other party leaders, at the request of the Commission for Racial Equality, a document which stated that when debating immigration and asylum matters we must be particularly careful to ensure that we say and do nothing to harm race and community relations in this country. The test of the right policy and the right approach will be passed by the politicians who rise above the temptation to foster party advantage and racial disharmony and argue for immigration and asylum policies that allow Britain to honour its obligations and those who come to us for help to be dealt with quickly and fairly in their interests and in ours.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members to keep their remarks within a reasonable limit. There is little time left for the debate and many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye.
    5.20 pm
    Mr. George Mudie: First, I pay tribute to the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Sometimes, he infuriates both friends and enemies, but when he pitches his speech in the manner that he has just done, it is hard not to pay tribute to its content.
    However, I shall not go down the road of that speech, which dealt largely with asylum matters. Asylum is under debate for obvious political reasons, providing a nice bit of knock-about, a few good headlines and, perhaps, a little embarrassment. I shall leave others to deal with it. I prefer to take the opportunity to deal with a number of immigration matters, which arise from having thousands of constituents who were either born in the Indian subcontinent or whose mum and dad were born there while they were born here, who, over the years, have had problems with the immigration rules. I prefer to leave asylum to the heavy hitters, who have much in their past to cover up and will do their best to do so, and deal with immigration.
    I offer the Government my condolences because this is another matter where 18 years of neglect and hostility by some of the culprits smiling on the Opposition Benches could not be put right in the two and a half years that Labour has been in government. The dates and times, the run-down of staff and the ordering of computers, are all grist to that mill.
    I congratulate the Government on a number of immigration matters. First—this might be seen as a slightly back-handed compliment because it concerns a Minister from another Department—I congratulate the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). Immigration matters are shared between the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and my hon. Friend has, uniquely, started surgeries for all hon. Members with difficult immigration problems. When a Minister deals with immigration problems, he does not have much spare time, he does not get much thanks, he has a fair amount of reading and he probably has 649 hon. Members coming

    1075
    to him with problems. Therefore, to put aside time to meet hon. Members by appointment is particularly courageous, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on that initiative. I hope that it spreads to others.
    The other matter to which I want to refer was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and the context in which she mentioned it was sad. The Home Secretary and the Government must be congratulated on the removal of the primary purpose rule within months of taking office. That was probably the most pernicious and vicious piece of legislation, the most blatant piece of race legislation, which affected individuals, and young individuals in the main, ever to have been put on the statute book. When it was consigned to history within months of Labour taking office, I thought that no one grieved.
    It is sad that, in the context of what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said was an attempt at a firm and fair immigration policy, she alluded to the removal of that measure as bad. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) replies, he makes it clear, for the relief of many British people and many serious politicians on both sides of the House, that that pernicious piece of legislation is deservedly buried and will not reappear whatever happens. I see some Conservative Members shake their heads, but I hope that they represent the minority. Within months of taking office, the Labour Government removed that provision, and they deserve to be congratulated on that.
    I also congratulate the Government on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, particularly the reinstatement of appeals for visitors who have been refused a visitor's visa, a right which was removed by the previous Government in 1993, placing an undeserved burden on the shoulders of entry clearance officers, who have a hard enough job without that. I am often critical of them and sometimes furious with them, but they have an unenviable job. When they were given the final say on visitors, that proved the last straw for many of them. However, I am told by the Minister that, in October, those appeals will be reintroduced with a comprehensive system of fast tracking, which will deal with the differences that often arise in immigration cases where time matters.
    Having said that, I should like quietly to ask Ministers to rethink two matters. One concerns a sad legacy that we inherited on which we should have wanted to act immediately, and it involves DNA testing. I have come across several cases which reveal an outrageous bureaucracy and hard-heartedness, whereby parents have had the right to come here with their children, but one of their children, because of the paucity of records in the Indian subcontinent, is singled out as not being their true child and so is prevented from coming here. Incredibly, that means that a youngster is deliberately separated from his or her family and raised in another country with relatives while his or her bothers or sisters are raised here with their mum and dad.
    I speak with feeling on the matter because I have one particular case that I have raised with the Home Secretary and on which I shall continue to campaign until my dying day. One does not have to have been in a happy family to know what family life is all about. For us as a state
    1076
    deliberately to separate children from their mum and dad and brothers and sisters so that they grow up without them is unacceptable.
    The problem caused by the lack of records was put right by DNA testing. That allowed any dispute to be settled scientifically. I hope that there is not an hon. Member who would not want that wrong to be put right if scientific evidence showed that we had deprived an individual of a family life and all that goes with it. We have done that and we are continuing to do so. That is the saddest thing that any Government or human being could do. What would happen in other aspects of Home Office life—what would have happened to the Birmingham Six—if we said that, although scientific evidence had proved that a wrong had been committed, we were not prepared to put it right? I cannot think of an hon. Member who would not be on his feet objecting to that.
    I remember the Friday afternoon when my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of first world war pardons. Men were shot or imprisoned 80 years ago and all were dishonoured, but medical evidence on their condition emerged years later and the House is united in its determination to put things right. However, there is studied indifference to the DNA issue.
    Ms Oona King: When DNA testing proves conclusively that children have been denied the right to be brought up with their family, would not the offer of a concession by the Home Office be a common-sense way forward? Will my hon. Friend push the Minister further on that point?
    Mr. Mudie: I am grateful for that intervention, but may I consult my notes? I should have said that the Home Office accepted that a wrong had been done, but the individual was over 18 by that time and it said, "Of course you're right, but you're past 18 and you cannot come in." One should not say to someone whose childhood was taken away as he could not be brought up by his mum and dad, "We have done you no wrong." Anybody with any decency about him would say, "We have committed a grievous sin and we should put it right." I would welcome any concessions and plead with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision on this matter.
    Sir Peter Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, sometimes, the problem occurs because the family substitutes a nephew or niece on its list and that person is allowed in? Is he suggesting that such a person would be returned? I do not think so. The problem is more difficult than he describes.
    Mr. Mudie: The problem is difficult. It has various aspects such as the passage of time and the person involved growing up and having a family, but I cannot get away from the fact that we wrongly separated individuals from their family. How should we behave? The House should not look around for excuses, but face up to the fact that we made a mistake, although not deliberately. [Interruption.] I am being signalled to finish, and quite rightly, but I want to discuss bonds.
    I am in difficulty, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised this point and I am in the same position as her. I confess that I discovered that

    1077
    the consultation document had been sent out only as I was researching my speech. We are too late. The 1999 Act refers to the bond as well, so I hold my hands up. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister not to put bonds for visitors into operation until we have seen how the re-established appeals procedure works. She is quite right to say that a number of constituents have said to Members, "If they don't believe us, let us put up a bond." Members have passed that on to the Home Office and, as a listening Government, we have put the proposal into legislation. However, a number of Members were influenced by the past seven years, when visitors' rights of appeal were not permitted.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned bonds. Does he agree that their introduction would discriminate against the poorest people and be divisive for families in this country? They would be discriminatory because they will, I understand, be introduced under a pilot scheme applying to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. That will cause untold anger among those in the south Asian community in this country, who will feel that the Government are discriminating against them.
    Mr. Mudie: I do myself no good with the Home Secretary, but I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. These words from the consultation document should fill any Home Office Minister with dread:
    "We envisage that a bond will only be requested by an Entry Clearance Officer … in certain circumstances."
    What are those circumstances?
    "This will be when the ECO is satisfied that all other requirements of the visitor rules are met, but there is reason to doubt that someone who has applied for a visa visit to come to the UK … intends to return to their own country."
    I cannot understand why a person should not get a visa if he has met all the conditions that we have imposed. We could apply that paragraph to the other part of the Home Office and tell the police, "Have this individual, go through every question and get his alibi, but if you have a gut feeling, despite him giving perfect answers, put a bond on him because your gut feeling is enough," but we would not get such legislation past the House. In these circumstances, a person might satisfy every condition and the entry clearance officer might say, "Okay," but he still may face a bond.
    I do not think that the bond will be £10,000—that figure represents a hit of kite flying to make £5,000 satisfactory—but it will have to be substantial if it is to act as a deterrent. That is wrong. We should either introduce bonds on the facts and be able to check those facts on appeal or leave things—[Interruption.] I shall finish soon, to the relief of the Whip.
    Constituents should be able to say to us, "I can afford it. Put a bond on and I'll pay it," but what would happen to the constituent who cannot afford a bond? This story is not hypothetical. A woman constituent of mine was dying in a hospice and was days from going into a fatal coma. Her brother and three sisters were in Pakistan. She asked them to come and they wanted to see her. The ECO let the younger sister in, but the other two were turned down. They would not be turned down now, but would have a bond placed on them. Such a family would have to find £10,000 to come here to see a dying sister. I could provide other instances in which the ECO turned people down,
    1078
    despite the facts. Every Member of the House knows such stories. The Government have introduced the proposal for the right reason, but I appeal for it not to be implemented until we have re-established the appeal system in October, seen how it works and gained confidence in an objective adjudicator who listens to the facts.
    5.37 pm
    Mr. Michael Howard: I do not want to add to the difficulties of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) with the Home Secretary, but I, too, agree with his last point and what he said about the bond. He made a powerful case against the proposal. While I am in agreement mode, I agree with the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on the work of the immigration service. Although there is no doubt that it does a tremendous amount of hard and conscientious work—it is right to pay tribute to that—the debate is about not its efforts, but the system in which it has to operate.
    First, I must nail the repeated falsehoods so sedulously propagated by Ministers from the Prime Minister down—he was at it at Question Time today—whenever they discuss these issues. They never comment without blaming the previous Government for the appalling mess that they themselves created. There is absolutely no foundation whatever for those allegations. Let me repeat the figures, although they are a matter of record. I last quoted them in the House during our debate on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and invited the Home Secretary to challenge them. He conspicuously refused that invitation.
    In 1996, which was the last full year of the previous Government's term, there were 29,640 asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. The year before, the number was almost 44,000—to be exact, 43,965. That reduction was a direct result of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, for which I was responsible, and of the associated benefit changes for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was responsible.
    If we compare the figures month by month—a much fairer comparison, as the changes were not in force for the whole of 1996—we see that the percentage reduction was even greater than that represented by the figures that I have just given. If, for example, we compare the figures for May 1996 with those of May 1995, we see that the reduction was nearly 50 per cent. That was the record of the last Government: a record of substantial progress. Let us compare those figures with the record of the present Government. The number of asylum seekers in 1999 was not 29,640 but 71,160, nearly two and a half times as many.
    Those are national figures. I represent a part of Kent that has had to bear more—much more—than its fair share of the burden that inevitably arises as a result of the numbers; and the numbers in Kent are stark. In the first six months of the financial year 1996–97, fewer than 50 in-country asylum seekers—those who apply for asylum after entering the country—were dealt with by Kent county council. Since 19 August last year, less than six months ago, the council has dealt with more than 5,000 in-country asylum seekers. That is the measure of the total failure—the total abdication of responsibility—of the present Government.
    Fiona Mactaggart: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to recognise is that those figures

    1079
    reflect the fact that asylum seekers are coming from different parts of the world. That is the main reason for the increase in the United Kingdom, and the main reason for the differential between the impact on Kent and the impact elsewhere. The vast bulk of the increase is represented by an increase in the number of asylum seekers from Europe; the number of asylum seekers from Africa is still significantly lower than it was in the 1980s. I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw that remark.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I did not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was intentionally misleading the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Lady should qualify her remark.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady's assertion is wholly unconvincing. I shall deal with the source of asylum seekers later.
    Mr. Shaw: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howard: I will, but then I must make progress.
    Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regret the fact that the 1996 Act placed the burden of funding asylum seekers on councils such as our own Kent county council? Does he not agree that national Government should bear the financial responsibility, as Kent county council now says?
    Mr. Howard: The 1996 Act did not do that. The Home Secretary was partly right in what he said earlier. The Act had the dramatic impact to which I have referred. As the Home Secretary rightly pointed out, that impact was then blunted by a High Court decision on judicial review, which placed the burden to which the hon. Gentleman refers on local authorities, and distorted the intended effect of the Act.
    The Home Secretary was right about that, but he was wrong in saying that the judicial review decision was made in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. In fact, it was made in a lower court; and there were two things that the present Government could and should have done to restore the original effect of the 1996 Act.
    First, the Government could and should have appealed against the decision made on judicial review. They decided not to pursue such an appeal. Secondly, they could and should have introduced subsequent legislation to restore the good effect of the 1996 Act. I am sure that they would have had the full support of the Opposition had they done so. If that had been done, the 1996 Act would have continued to have the dramatic, beneficial and constructive impact that it had in 1996.
    I must say one more thing about Kent. I must reproach and reprove the Government for the fact that they have yet to reimburse Kent county council for the costs that it has incurred in dealing with this problem.
    1080
    I have concentrated on the figures relating to the number of people seeking asylum here, but the last Government also made progress in regard to the number of applications dealt with. In the last year of Conservative government, the number was nearly 50 per cent. up on that of the previous year. Moreover, we managed to reduce the backlog of applications by 10,000. Responsibility for the present mess rests squarely—indeed, exclusively—on the shoulders of the present Government. Those are the facts of the matter.
    I have always made it clear that we in this country should continue to act in accordance with our honourable tradition of granting refuge to those who genuinely flee persecution, and none of the changes made by the last Government affected the entitlement of genuine refugees to obtain asylum here. But it is surely crystal clear that our arrangements are being abused—and "abused" is the right word.
    The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who I am sorry to see is no longer present, talked absolute nonsense when he compared an application for asylum that failed with an application for a job that failed. It is a ridiculous comparison: we need only glance at the latest figures in the most cursory way to see that that is so. In every single month of 1999 since May, far the largest number of asylum seekers came from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; almost all came, or claimed to have come, from Kosovo.
    It is of course true that, in May and June last year, terrible atrocities were committed in Kosovo. I have no doubt that, at the time, many genuine refugees from that troubled land applied for asylum here, and may well have been entitled to asylum here. Since July, however, we and other countries have had armies in Kosovo. They are there to ensure that persecution does not take place. It is surely ludicrous that we should undertake the burden of an expensive military presence in that land to make it safe, and at the same time allow large numbers of people from that land to enter this country alleging that it is not safe. That is an inexplicable and indefensible state of affairs.
    The Government have in their hands a remedy for this abuse. The provisions in the 1996 Act that enabled applications from certain listed countries to be made subject to an accelerated appeal process are still on the statute book. The Government have acknowledged that no unfairness has resulted from the operation of that power. They could have added months ago, and could add today, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the list. That single step—which I asked the Home Secretary to take as long ago as 9 September—could have a dramatic impact on the scale of the problem.
    I urge the Government to take that step, and also to take the steps urged on them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). If they do not, they will simply confirm the widely held view that they lack the political will to sort out the mess for which they, and they alone, are responsible.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Roger Godsiff: I know that time is short and others wish to speak, so I shall confine myself to relatively few points.
    I welcome the opportunity to debate immigration policy. As was said earlier, the issue can provoke heated comments, and we must tread carefully. Regrettably,

    1081
    certain comments made by Opposition Members about asylum policy seemed to be along the lines of "Our asylum policy shambles was not as bad as your asylum policy shambles", rather than contributing to a debate on the merits of the policy.
    I do not want to talk about asylum policy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), I will leave that to others to slug out. Similarly, I do not want to talk about immigration policy in terms of the racketeers, the people who prey upon desperate individuals, cram them into the backs of lorries and get them into the country, having taken large sums of money off them. I pay tribute to the work of the immigration service in trying to stop those rackets. I certainly support the policy of making more resources available to the immigration service to deal with the problem.
    I do not want to talk either about immigrants coming into this country via the European Union. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised that issue in a Westminster Hall debate recently, when it was adequately covered. Instead, I want to talk about another aspect of Home Office policy, but before doing so I shall comment on refugee status. This country has had a long and honourable tradition over many hundreds of years of taking in refugees who have fled from political persecution. I would like that always to be the position. However, as a Member who has many constituents who have come from the Indian subcontinent and from other parts of the world, I have to say that the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees has on many occasions been flagrantly abused. Not only that, unscrupulous solicitors and immigration advisers have used it as a device to make money, not as a means of helping the individuals concerned.
    When the 1951 convention was brought into force, we lived in an entirely different world from the one we now occupy. The world had recently been devastated by a world war and there had been mass displacements of populations. Millions of people were swilling around who had suffered political persecution. I am not saying that political persecution does not exist in the world now, but escape from poverty is often the prime factor in immigration cases, not escape from persecution.
    I shall direct my remarks to a specific aspect of Home Office policy. I say Home Office policy—not Conservative policy or Labour policy—for reasons that I hope will become apparent. In effect, it is a Home Office tablet of stone. The immigration service fights a valiant battle to deal with organised racketeering, but the service knows that it is rather like trying to put its finger into a dam. The United Kingdom, for reasons best known to Home Office officials, chooses not to have an embarkation policy, unlike America and Australia, for example.
    We know that in 1996, 849,060 people came to this country on short-term visas. In 1997, 851,000 came here. The Home Office does not have the slightest idea whether 849,060 left or whether one left. That is because there is no means of knowing. That means that once someone has entered the country he can stay here for the rest of his life, unless he runs into officialdom, is picked up by the police for a driving offence or runs into problems with the Benefits Agency, for example. Least of all does the Home Office know whether that individual has left.
    I feel strongly because entry clearance officers are aware of the situation. All the pressure goes on them, if they have the slightest doubt about an individual, to say
    1082
    no. If he is a young man from the Indian subcontinent and a subsistence farmer, the entry clearance officer will put on the refusal notice, "I suspect that you may try to remain in the United Kingdom. Therefore permission is refused." That will happen despite the young man meeting all the other criteria.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, the reintroduction of the appeal system for visitors is to be welcomed, particularly if it is a fast-track system. However, the lack of embarkation controls means that entry clearance officers are doing their job blind. Good entry clearance officers will want to know whether their judgment is correct. When they interview someone and say, "Right, I will give you a visa", they will want to know whether that person complied with the terms of the visa and returned to their country before the visa expired after six months. However, as the system stands—it is not a Labour Government system but one that the previous Conservative Government were happy to operate for 18 years—that information will not be available.
    That is Home Office policy, but why? It is because the Home Office says, "We are not going to pay for the cost of embarkation controls. Our budget was not funded for that." If the repercussions are that the Lord Chancellor's Department has to deal with all the appeals, for example, there will be more abuse of the benefits system. However, the Home Office says, "It is not our problem. It is nothing to do with us." In the modern world of the new millennium, we can go out shopping to—I was about to say Asda, but our friend is not in the Chamber, and neither is our new friend from Sainsbury—a supermarket and use a swipe card. We can even get reward points. However, the immigration service cannot have a system whereby people entering the country can be swiped in, nor one that swipes them out when they leave. That is ridiculous and dangerous.
    Most of the debates that take place in this country on immigration are heavily clouded with prejudice, perception and myth. Why is it that the far right in British politics has immigration policy as its first policy, which is to kick out the immigrants? It takes that position because it knows that in doing so it is on strong ground. Its arguments can never be countered by fact. It is always prejudice, perception and myth. I regret to say that the Home Office seems to be happy to allow that to happen.
    I can see no reason why we cannot have rational debates on immigration policy that are based on fact. Why cannot we debate rationally whether this country should allow further primary immigration? Personally, I do not think that it is necessary, but why cannot we discuss it? Why cannot we discuss what policies we need to put in place to catch the people who are abusing the system? In 1996, 849,060 people came to this country as visitors. If 849,059 went back, I would gladly concede that we do not need to put a paraphernalia of controls in place to deal with the situation. If only one went back, we would need to have such discussions.
    I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and the Secretary of State will be prepared to take on the forces of conservatism that are obviously alive and kicking in the Home Office. After the disappearing Government amendment, Ministers' feelings towards the Home Office may be that much more psyched up. I hope that they are very psyched up. They will do race relations in this country a great service if they are

    1083
    prepared to take on Home Office officials' conservative attitude, which has nothing to do with joined-up government. They say, "We will not have sensible controls because we are not going to pay. If another part of Government wants to pick up the cost, it will be their problem."
    I hope that the Minister can assure me that she and her colleagues will look again at the implementation of sensible embarkation controls. After all, Britain is an island and there are only 50 points of legal entry into the country. If Australia and the United States can do it, I fail to understand why we cannot.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: In the spring of 1992, I had very little to do with my life, the reason being that, a little while earlier, the electors of Croydon, North-West, in their wisdom, probably rightly, decided that they would like a Labour Member of Parliament. There I was, wondering how to conduct my life, when the then Home Secretary kindly contacted me and, with my background in immigration work in Croydon, asked me to produce a report, which I did.
    That led to the formation of the Immigration Advisory Service, which I chaired and was trustee of for several years. I enjoyed my work in immigration greatly. I learned that it was important to give help with compassion and to approach topics with good sense and moderate language. How right the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) was about the DNA point, by the way. We need not emotive conversations, but debates with a bit of good hard sense.
    With that background and knowing that there had been 4,000 applications for asylum in this country in 1988, which had risen to 70,000 or more in 1999, I took some advice over the weekend. My constituency of Woking has a large, settled Pakistani minority, so I went to see one of the leaders of that group. I said, "There is a big debate on Tuesday about immigration and asylum." He said, "I have some advice, which you can take to the Home Secretary for me." I said, "You know the background. There is a big backlog of cases. There is an increasing number of asylum applications year after year."
    That person's advice was, "It is quite simple. What we need in this country is more people making quick decisions about asylum applications. We need more adjudicators to hear appeals quickly, decisions to be made fast, short appeal times, one line of appeal, rather than several, final appeals to be made fast, and the results of those appeals to be enforced quickly. We do not want a refusal all the way up the line, followed by no enforcement action. Take that back to the House of Commons because that is the policy that is in the interest of the settled people in Woking. Tell your friend the Home Secretary that." He still thinks that I am a Labour Member; I have not told him yet that I am not. Did not what he said make good sense? This country needs such policies.
    One would think that the Home Secretary realises that, over the past two or three years, asylum applications in this country have gone up and up and need to be looked at carefully. When the applications for asylum go up, so does the backlog of cases. We were told in May last year
    1084
    that the backlog of asylum applications awaiting initial decision was 52,000. By the end of September, the figure was 90,000. By now, it is well over 100,000. It must be obvious to anyone that some serious action is needed.
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will agree that the backlog depends as well on the number of cases that are determined. Does he share my curiosity to hear the Home Secretary say that the latest figure for the number of applications that has been determined was nudging 4,000? Home Office asylum statistics that I have received show that the figure is only 2,320 and that there has been a further decline in the number since last summer?
    Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend, who has a distinguished background in immigration and asylum, is right.
    Apart from the backlog, I want to look at two other categories of people. One is those who are seeking asylum in this country and with whom the Government have lost contact. Many of those seeking asylum disappear in our system and are never heard of again. I do not think that those are genuine people. They should not benefit from Government inefficiency, but I regret that they do.
    In a written question, I asked the Home Secretary for an estimate of the number of people seeking asylum with whom the Government had lost contact completely. His response in 1998 was that he thought that there were possibly 14,000 such people, plus their dependants, in this country.
    The second category is those who lose all their rights of appeal in respect of either asylum or immigration. What has happened to them? I have suggested to the authorities that there are tens of thousands of such people in this country, who, having lost all their rights of appeal, are never dealt with further. They are lost to the system and stay here. It makes one wonder what the point is of an appeal.
    When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), about that in March 1999, I was told that it was estimated that some 24,000 people, plus their dependants, lost every right of appeal all the way through and were still here, against whom no action had been taken.
    When the permanent under-secretary at the Home Office, Mr. David Omand, came to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year, I discussed with him the retrieval system. I said:
    "Am I right in saying that there are tens of thousands of such people at large in the country"
    who have lost all their appeals, with whom there is no contact and for whom there is no retrieval system? He agreed that the number of such people was extremely large. He could not give the actual figure. I said that it was a ludicrous world. We had an appeal system whereby people could appeal all the way up, lose all the way up, lose their case and still have less than a 10 or 20 per cent. chance of ever being found and deported from the country. He replied:
    "I agree entirely … We"—
    the Government and Home Office
    "are trying to … get ourselves out of the absurd situation that you have described."

    1085
    He described it, I regret to say, as "a losing battle." That is one of the problems. It is all very well hearing and dismissing appeals, but, after that, one does absolutely nothing. That means that the interests of genuine asylum applicants are not met and are damaged.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I intervene precisely on that point. One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues has suggested that enforcement action has been taken against only 350 asylum seekers. That seems to be a peculiar misreading of Home Office statistics. I am struck by the fact that, since the election of the Government, enforcement action has been more rigorous. From a proper reading of the table, it seems to have more than doubled: about 1,290 asylum seekers had enforcement action taken against them in 1995 and 3,430 in 1998. Will he join me in welcoming the more rigorous enforcement action and the increase in the hearings of appeals, which speed up the system in the way in which he advises?
    Mr. Malins: I would join the hon. Lady if I thought that the enforcement action was more rigorous, but I think that it is all talk and no action. In answer to a parliamentary question on the issue that I tabled to the Home Secretary, I was told that, in 1998, only 350 failed asylum seekers left as a result of deportation orders made against them.
    Where are the tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers now? Who is paying for their upkeep, and why should the ratepayer or taxpayer pay for it when the applicants have failed in their attempts all the way down the line? Where are the tens of thousands who have lost their immigration and other appeals all the way down the line, but are still in the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important point. However, given his expertise in the matter, I am slightly surprised at some of his comments. He will know that we are discussing deportation orders, whereas very many asylum seekers in the United Kingdom enter as clandestine entrants. They are therefore subject to administrative removal, not to deportation orders.
    Mr. Malins: I hear what the Minister says, and there is some merit in her final point. However, the point that I made to her was based precisely on a parliamentary answer that I have been given.
    The general point—no hon. Member can deny it—is that tens of thousands of people lose their immigration appeals all the way down the line but never leave. Moreover, tens of thousands of people with answers to their asylum applications pending lose contact entirely with the Home Office.
    When people claim asylum in the United Kingdom, the Government have to ensure that, first, the Home Office knows how to keep in contact with them, rather than lose contact completely; secondly, their cases are heard quickly; thirdly, when the result is known, an appeal is heard soon and quickly; and, fourthly, and very importantly, any enforcement is really acted upon, rather than completely ignored. Unless the Government are prepared to do that, the problem will only get ever worse. The Labour party should also know that those who are genuine asylum applicants and lawfully settled here—and I know many of them—suffer from the problem as much as anyone else does.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am glad that the tone of the debate has changed. In its first half hour or three quarters of an hour, I felt that we were listening simply to hysteria and to attacks on the Government's record. I say that as someone who has not always supported the Government on the issue, and—unlike any Tory Members in the Chamber—I voted against the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, although I did vote for the proposed amendment to it to restore benefits.
    I realise, however, that since the general election visitor visa appeals have been restored, the primary purpose rule has been changed, and action has been taken on same sex relationships and to help the victims of domestic violence. The nature of the Home Office has also changed—it is more open now, and we are able, for example, to go there to read country assessments. All the changes add up to an enormous improvement on previous practice. I also certainly do not regard the Minister as a soft touch when I go to her with cases, but sometimes wish that she was a rather softer touch on those cases.
    The debate has sometimes shied away from discussing the issue—I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised it—of the central principles of asylum policy. When people come to us asking for asylum, it is because they have been persecuted. Subsequently, we are supposed to fulfil the international obligations that we accepted in the 1951 convention on refugees.
    It is extremely depressing that, whenever there is a debate on asylum either inside or outside the House, it is conducted entirely in negative terms—such as, "These people are frauds and benefits scroungers." In my constituency advice surgeries, I have seen people who make asylum claims that I think are entirely unfounded, and I have told them so. However, in many of those cases they have quite good reasons to be allowed to remain in the country and could use good mechanisms to achieve it, but they have been pushed into making a stupid asylum claim by a solicitor or a so-called immigration adviser.
    It is regrettable that, in the past decade, we have built our asylum and immigration policy on the basis of negative assertions. The debate always seems to start with the question, "How can we deal with fraud?", rather than with questions such as, "What are our international obligations on asylum? What should they be? What type of immigration policy do we want?" It seems sometimes as though we are not talking about people, but we are—we are talking about people's lives.
    The point on the condition and origin of refugees has already been made and I shall not labour it. However, most refugees are not—and never will be—in Europe. Most refugees are women and children, and most of them go to poor countries adjacent to the countries from which they had to flee. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber will have seen refugee camps, perhaps in Africa, in the middle east, or perhaps even in Serbia. There are probably more refugees in Serbia than in any other country in Europe. It may not be popular to draw attention to the fact—but it is true—that there are very large numbers of refugees in Serbia.
    The top four countries from which we receive asylum seekers are the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Anyone who knows what has been happening in those countries should not be surprised

    1087
    about the numbers of refugees that they have produced. Regardless of whether we agreed with the bombing, the fact is that we have just had the biggest war in Europe for 50 years. Wars generate refugees. All refugees do not return to their home simply because the war and the bombing have ended. In the history of movements of people, that has never happened. It just does not happen like that.
    The sooner that Governments stop pretending that we can really fundamentally affect the number of people applying for asylum here with our internal laws, the better. I have never believed the argument that benefits are a draw. No serious evidence has ever been produced to back up that argument. Some people say, "When benefits were taken away, the number of applications decreased", but the number increased later. If we seriously compare the number of in-country applications and port applications before and after benefits were withdrawn from applicants, the benefits argument does not stand up. If benefits had been the draw, we would have had far more fraud and applications refused at ports of entry—which is how one keeps benefits—but that has simply not happened. The issue is far more complicated than that.
    The first part of this debate really should cause us some concern, because what is happening to asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is worrying. Hostility towards asylum seekers is being generated by the impression that they are all fraudulent. Very real hostility is being encountered by those who say they are asylum seekers or refugees.
    We are also saying to people outside London and the south-east, "It's a good idea to disperse applicants. We're going to send you people who are frauds and scroungers." They must think that that is a great idea, after that image of applicants has been created. I have some very real concerns about the way in which the interim support scheme is being operated, and the destitution of some of those who are being cut off from support.
    I shall keep my remarks brief, given the time limitations. My final point is on economic migration, and the idea that we shall be able to address the issue of economic migration in our immigration and asylum law. Anyone who believes that is living in a dream world. The pressures of economic migration will not be controlled through asylum and immigration law. Some of the countries that are being complained about now—including Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania—already have association agreements with the European Union allowing economic migration. Soon they will be full members of the EU with freedom of movement throughout the Union. We are not going to address the issue through asylum and immigration law.
    We encourage economic migration when it suits us. We are happy to receive a nurse or a doctor or a business man with a lot of money. It is easy for the rich to enter the UK. We will not turn off the pressure of economic migration through immigration and asylum law. We need to deal with it through foreign policy, aid, investment, trade and other mechanisms. Dealing with economic migration should not be the driving force for asylum and immigration policy. We are in danger of concentrating on keeping people out when we have undertaken in international conventions to help people who have been persecuted.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on selecting this important issue for debate. It is a sensitive, emotive and serious issue—in short, precisely the sort of issue that the House ought to debate. It is right that the Opposition should make time for it if the Government do not.
    We have to deal with the issue sensitively. Every Member of Parliament will have had to deal with asylum seekers who, at worst—albeit rarely—have suffered torture or persecution, and, at least, come from impoverished and distressed countries. It is an emotive issue because the scale of the problem causes concern in this country. Many people recognise that a great proportion of asylum seekers are not genuine refugees. That concern leads to resentment, which is easily turned against the asylum seekers. I emphatically believe that that is wrong. Even those who are what the Prime Minister today called bogus asylum seekers—economic migrants—deserve our sympathy. They come from miserably poor and insecure countries. Many of them are enterprising and talented people responding to opportunities in our law and our system.
    The real targets of public resentment and blame should be those in the media, politics and the law who, perhaps inadvertently, have created a system that generates incentives and opportunities for people to cross the world in large numbers and drive a coach and horses through our original immigration laws. Most pernicious of all are those who try to suppress debate on the subject by pretending that there is no serious problem, saying that all asylum seekers are genuine political refugees or trying to silence critics of the present system by accusing them of being the friends of torturers or racists. We have heard disgraceful accusations that the Conservatives are playing the race card. We have made no attempt to do that. I object strongly to people who play the racism card and try to smear those who enter into debate on this serious issue.
    The issue is serious because of its scale and growth. Last year there were 71,000 applications for asylum in this country. That understates the problem, because the Government do not include the dependants of asylum seekers in that figure. It is time that they did. The scale of the problem is so great that they should collect and report that information. On UNHCR figures, that means that there are more than 90,000 people applying, including dependants. Even that understates the true picture, because it does not include other dependants who will be brought over by those who are given the right to remain.
    Nearly 100,000 people is a huge number. The Government try to give the impression that large numbers are being returned at the end of the process. The Home Secretary came up with some extraordinary figures that either were wrong or which contradict the figures published by the Government. His most recent document for December shows that there were 6,845 removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants from this country in 1998, which is the last full year for which figures are available. That compares with the very large number of applications and the total of 67,000 people against whom deportation or illegal entry action had been initiated by 4 January 1999. That information comes from a former Minister of State at the Home Office in the excellent House of Commons review on the subject.

    1089
    A high proportion of the people concerned are staying in this country. That is more than the population of Hitchin and Harpenden, the two main towns in my constituency. I am not suggesting that my constituents are suddenly going to be swamped by nearly 100,000 people. For the most part, they will stay in city centres, perhaps in squalid properties. However, they have to be housed and the effects will ripple out. We have to provide extra housing for the extra people in the country. The housing growth projections assume a net 5,000 asylum seekers staying in this country every year. That was obviously a fallacious figure when it was fed into the system in 1996 or 1997. I suspect that it was chosen for politically correct reasons to diminish the apparent size of the problem, offsetting it with some equally bogus figures elsewhere in the calculation. The Government must come clean on whether they are acknowledging the scale of the problem and its implications for housing in this country.
    Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister to confirm the information given in a briefing earlier this week that local authorities will be expected to provide 40 per cent. of the necessary housing from their stock?
    Mr. Lilley: I hope that the Minister will answer that point, as well as putting right the figures on deportations, removals and voluntary departures that her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave.
    The numbers fell by 30 per cent. in the last full year of the previous Conservative Government, but they doubled in the first full year of this Government, at a time when the increase in the whole of the rest of Europe for which we have figures was less than one fifth. It is absurd for the Government to suggest that we are simply experiencing an inflow felt by all other countries. The figures fell under the Conservatives because we were prepared to take tough action on benefits, entry procedures and employment rules. All those measures were opposed by Labour. The figures have risen under this Government because of their actions, their incompetence—the Home Secretary cannot even get his amendment to our motion right, so he is unlikely to be able to organise a system as complex as the asylum procedures—and their failure to respond to changed circumstances.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, pointed out the change in circumstances since the liberation of Kosovo. It is now policed by NATO, but in December the largest number of asylum applications—more than 1,000—still came from the former Yugoslavia. There are also large numbers who have been given temporary exceptional leave to remain in the past. In response to parliamentary questions, Ministers have said that only 2,000 have returned to Kosovo. We risked our armed forces to ensure that those refugees could return. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Home Secretary should now help them to do so.
    The Government have failed to tackle the worst bottlenecks and to increase the number of departures and removals rather than increasing the flow of approvals earlier in the production line, where it has no effect on the final number of people leaving the country. However, I agree that whatever is done by any Government, there remains a major problem. It has resulted from the growing ease of travel across the world colliding with the
    1090
    well-meaning gradual transformation of what was a limited discretionary power to grant access to refugees to a universal legal right.
    The 1951 convention applied only to Europe and to events before 1951 and gave a strict definition of a refugee. We signed the convention in 1954 and in 1967 the protocol removed the limitations on time and place. In 1993, the convention entered into United Kingdom law. All that was well meaning, but the consequence has been to extend to every inhabitant on the globe who can find their way to this country the right to enter, to claim asylum, to receive benefits, to appeal when their application is turned down, to receive legal aid, to take their case to judicial review, if they are lucky, and, if they can string out the process for long enough, to stay indefinitely.
    My personal view, which I do not think is shared by many of my hon. Friends, is that ultimately that system is untenable. I would ask the Home Secretary at least to look with an open mind at whether we can give some legalised right to everybody on the globe that can then be litigated in our courts. If he says that it is a matter of principle that they should have that legal right, how is it that we do not extend such a right to those who, within a country where persecution exists, find their way to the British embassy or high commission and ask whether they can come to Britain to claim asylum? They will be told, "Good Lord, no. That is not a criterion for coming to Britain. First, you have to convince us that you have a legitimate reason to come here, that you have the means to support yourself when you are here and that you have a return ticket. Just wanting to claim asylum is not allowed." Discretion is used and only in very extreme cases would such people be allowed to come here. We use discretion elsewhere, but we have created a legal, litigable right in this country which is the basis of the problem.
    Ms Oona King: Looking at the global context, would it not be right to increase our spending on international development assistance to reduce the flow of refugees? That would be in marked contrast to what the previous Government did.
    Mr. Lilley: We should certainly do all we can to improve the economic situation in those countries. I spent eight years of my life dealing with aid programmes. I have many criticisms of them, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that we should do all we can through trade, aid, investment and other means to remove the need for people to come here. However, at the end of the day we have a problem of enormous dimensions that the Government are trying to disguise, that their incompetence is aggravating and that has resulted in the United Kingdom ending up as a soft touch for people—with whom I have a great deal of sympathy—trying to get into this country, rather than providing a safe haven for the small number of genuine political refugees who we would all like to let in and who in the best circumstances would be let in by a much simpler procedure than we have at present.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased to sum up on the Liberal Democrat amendment which was fortunately selected today. I was also pleased to hear the Home Secretary's comments—not only when he confessed his slight error in manipulating fax machines, but the

    1091
    general liberal tone of his speech. I mean liberal not in the woolly sense, but in the rational sense. The right hon. Gentleman certainly advanced a more rational argument today than he has on many previous occasions about why we get a flow of asylum seekers and what the responsible factors are. It is not something that has always characterised the Government's contributions to the debate.
    I am old-fashioned enough to feel that we should be judged on how we treat the worst off in society. I also believe that society does not end at the white cliffs of Dover. That view is held by many citizens in this country and many right hon. and hon. Members.
    I was extremely proud of the way in which the people of Sheffield treated Kosovan refugees who arrived there during the height of the crisis. Children gave up their toys in order to make the refugees feel at home and the entire community supported them. As well as the most obvious cases, I feel some sympathy for individuals such as the Roma people from the Czech Republic who have a history of persecution. Tens of thousands of them were killed in concentration camps in the second world war and they now see their families and friends murdered in the streets by skinheads, often with very little response from the authorities.
    Although they and many similar groups may not qualify for asylum, we must never forget to relate on a human level to people in such appalling circumstances whatever strict criteria of the refugee convention or the Immigration Rules apply. Many hon. Members would join me in praising the Labour Members who have to deal with such people on a daily basis for the way in which they have maintained their sympathy and humanity.
    I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for raising this important debate, although I question her motives in doing so and fundamentally disagree with virtually everything that she said.
    Not only in the United Kingdom, but across Europe we are at a crossroads in terms of our attitude towards immigration and asylum policy. We have to decide whether to become fortress Europe or to accept reality and embrace globalisation. One view of the world is summarised by Jorg Haider and the Freedom party in Austria, which should fire a warning shot across Europe and remind us that some people are trying to create a climate of fear surrounding immigration and outsiders.
    Although the debate today has been quite measured, some of the comments outside the House demonstrate that there are forces within the Conservative party seeking to play to a different agenda by scaremongering and making the problem seem worse than it is. That is despite the party leaders all signing up to the excellent declaration on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Refugee Council. It states that
    "the right to free political expression must not be abused in pursuit of political advantage by inciting or exploiting prejudice on the grounds of race, nationality or religion."
    We need to take that seriously, as some people do not take such a charitable view and interpret differently words that are uttered in all innocence to create ugly scenes such as we have witnessed in towns in the south-east where incidents of public disorder have been deliberately stirred up.
    1092
    The alternative is to accept reality and respond properly to the challenges of globalisation. That is what we have sought to do in our amendment today, which proposes a system of immigration and asylum which is genuinely able to cope with the legitimate demands of a world in which many people live and work and marry people in different countries. National borders are no longer the barriers that they used to be.
    I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we should judge matters according to how we would wish to be treated. If I sought to marry someone from another country, I would not expect to have to jump through a huge number of hoops, to have my passport held by the authorities for six months at a time or to have to wait nine months to get an interview before a decision was taken as to whether I could live with my partner. However, that is the reality for many people today.
    We live in a world where students who wish to travel face problems. We all desire and need a good-quality immigration service. The comments from the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) were particularly instructive in pointing to some of the detailed problems that arise on a day-to-day basis and are wholly unnecessary. Such problems should belong in the past. One of the positive messages that we are trying to draw out of the debate is that the immigration service should exist to assist citizens and not to erect a series of barriers to try to stop citizens of whatever country going about their perfectly legitimate business. The vast majority of people who apply for visitor visas or student visas or wish to marry are perfectly decent people who simply wish to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the modern world.
    As we heard from the Home Secretary, recent asylum claims have been from people from countries such as the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka, where there are clearly acknowledged problems. We need continually to remind ourselves that large numbers of people are being displaced because of the security situation, which is unlikely to improve. If we are planning for the next 10 or 20 years, we should invest in the asylum system because we shall need it. Let us not kid ourselves about global peace and security, as that is not our experience. Anyone with any understanding of foreign affairs will realise that we need to plan in order to cope with future influxes from flashpoint countries such as Kashmir. If anything blew up there, huge numbers of refugees would be displaced, many of whom would have a legitimate claim and wish to stay with relatives in the United Kingdom, for example.
    In that climate, it is our duty to show real political leadership; to reaffirm this country's commitment fully to participate in international affairs and to support international justice and human rights. We live in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. We have always done so—since the Celts mixed with the Romans, followed by the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans. From that time, through the British empire and up to the present day, we have never been anything but a multi-ethnic society.
    Many immigrants and refugees have made an enormous contribution to British society and will continue to do so. Where better to celebrate that than in this global city of London? London is one of the foremost global cities; it benefits tremendously from its people. A recent report showed that more than 300 languages are spoken by

    1093
    London schoolchildren. That is not a threatening fact; it is one of the great strengths of the city and of this country and should be celebrated.
    I hope that the House will make it clear that we should show true political leadership. We must not fall prey to the blandishments of the likes of Jörg Haider, offering people simplistic and inaccurate solutions to the genuine problems that we face on the economy and on the global movement of people. The solutions lie in immigration and asylum services that are adequate to meet current and likely future demand. I hope that the Government will tell us that they are prepared to commit serious resources to that matter.
    I urge the House to support our amendment and thus to show that we can still take a rational and humane view on these matters. The Home Secretary spoke quite warmly to our amendment, and suggested that he did not find it wholly unpleasant. Despite his failure to condemn it, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will still feel able to support it.
    6.42 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) have spoken with considerable parliamentary and constituency experience of immigration and asylum issues. I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes that have been paid by Members on both sides of the House to the work of the staff at the immigration and nationality directorate. I add a tribute to the work of the private office staff of the Minister of State at the Home Office; they have always handled my constituency casework with great courtesy and efficiency.
    Mr. Straw: And Ministers?
    Mr. Lidington: I have to disappoint the Home Secretary with a less generous verdict on Ministers.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke with the benefit of several years of ministerial experience in handling these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) was able to speak both from his experience as a Member of Parliament and from his work, over several years, with the Immigration Advisory Service.
    I was particularly struck by two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. He made telling comments about enforcement action. My answer to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) would be that the figures on page 27 of the Home Office statistical bulletin show that, in a period during which the number of asylum applications has more than doubled, the amount of enforcement work has not even remotely kept pace with that upsurge in the number of cases coming to the notice of the IND.
    My hon. Friend referred to the position of ethnic minority communities. My experience is that some of the people who are most concerned to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of our asylum controls are members of British ethnic communities who are in this country
    1094
    lawfully. They are concerned partly because many of them had to surmount all the hurdles described by the hon. Member for Leeds, East—they, or members of their families, may have had to wait for many years to come here—so they feel that it is grossly unfair for other people to enter the country unlawfully.
    Furthermore, they are concerned because, sadly, as we saw last year in Dover, the security of Britain's ethnic communities within British society is questioned and comes under threat because some unpleasant racist groups take advantage of the genuine anxiety about failures in our system of asylum and immigration control. For that reason, it is right that the Opposition should assert our continuing commitment to work and speak for racial harmony and for the full integration of ethnic communities in Britain into the mainstream of our national life. We must also make it clear that we have grave concern as to the failures in the Government's management of the system of asylum and immigration control.
    The Government tend to offer several excuses for the acknowledged crisis that faces the system. The first and easy excuse is to say that it is all the fault of the Tories; it is all down to the previous Government. That excuse wears thinner every time that it is deployed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe gave us an account of what really happened—the Government's inheritance of falling queues during 1997 continued in 1998, as a result of the legislation introduced by him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
    Not only does that point give the lie to the excuse peddled by the Government, their own words make it clear that their explanation is untenable. The Government's annual report in March 1999, when they had been in office for almost two years, stated, in respect of the problems at Croydon:
    "The situation has now settled and the majority of problems have been resolved."
    The Government published a White Paper on immigration and asylum in July 1999—more than two years after they came to power—in which they set out the targets that they thought they were on track to achieve for the current financial year and for future financial years. Presumably, they had decided on those targets after taking into account any administrative difficulties, or any perceived trends in the number of applications. That excuse is untenable.
    The Government's next excuse is that the problem is due to great international trends that are beyond our control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was right to describe the international dimension—the age of mass movements of people in which we live. However, the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Walthamstow over-egged the pudding; they appeared to be saying that the Government could do nothing to influence the number of applications to enter the UK.
    It is true that last year in particular, because of the Kosovo crisis, there was tremendous pressure from the large movement of people into western European countries. However, the comparison between the relative shares of asylum seekers taken by countries is striking. Today, I studied the latest figures from the UNHCR—an unprejudiced source of information on the subject. Four European countries—Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland—account for more than 60 per cent. of all asylum applications.

    1095
    The UK was the only country whose share of the total increased during 1999. Germany's share fell from 27 per cent. to 22 per cent. In the Netherlands, the share fell from 12.5 per cent. to 9 per cent., and in Switzerland, from 11.4 per cent. to 10.7 per cent. The UK share—
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lidington: I am sorry, I do not have time to do so.
    The UK share rose from a little more than 16 per cent. in 1998 to almost 21 per cent. of the European total in 1999. That relative performance is an indication that we should be asking the Government for an explanation of their mismanagement of the system.
    The Government keep telling us that everything is getting better and that there will be plenty of improvements. The difficulty is that we have heard that tale so many times before.
    This morning, I found in my file one of a number of letters that I and other hon. Members had received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was formerly the Minister responsible for immigration. The letter was dated 5 March 1999 and it informed me that he expected things to return to normal by Easter of that year. The permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that all current asylum claims would be cleared by October 2000, a target that the Minister confirmed to me recently in a written answer. I hope that when the Minister of State replies, she will explain how the Government will do that.
    The Government's progress so far has been miserable. Their target for the current year was 59,000 asylum decisions to be taken, but the expected outturn is 38,000; their target was 46,000 appeals to be disposed of, but their expected performance is 22,100 and their target for the costs for the management of the IND and asylum seeker support was £587 million, but the actual cost is likely to be more than £800 million. That is an extra £200 million that could have been spent on hospitals, schools or the police. Instead, it is being frittered away because of ministerial mismanagement.
    It is because of the incompetence of Ministers that the morale of their staff has collapsed and that genuine refugees have to endure the anxiety of waiting for many, many months. For those reasons, it is right that the Government should be censured and that the House should accept the Opposition motion.
    6.51 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Let me start on a note of agreement with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House. They paid tribute to the work of the immigration service and the immigration and nationality directorate, which are doing the best that they can and are working very hard. That is why we are giving them the extra resources that they need and the resources of which they were starved by the previous Administration.
    Although all that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) could offer them was their P45, I appreciate what the hon. Member for
    1096
    Aylesbury said about the staff in my private office. They are excellent and they provide a very good service. The hon. Gentleman's comments will be warmly appreciated by very hard-working people.
    Despite the unpromising beginning by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, this has been a good debate. Immigration and asylum are important issues, and they are sensitive and complex subjects. It is right to say that the decisions that we take sometimes may mean the difference between life and death, so we should not underestimate the sensitivity of what we are doing.
    What are we trying to do? First, the key thing is that we are trying to honour our international obligations to genuine asylum seekers. The difficulty that we all face is that the huge numbers of unfounded applications being made at the moment devalue the whole concept of seeking asylum. I do not always see eye to eye with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on this subject, but I recognise his expertise on the matter as he chairs the all-party group on refugees. It is to uphold this country's proud tradition of giving asylum to genuine refugees that we must have a firm, fair and fast system.
    The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) were right to place the emphasis where they did and to speak about their constituency concerns. In the time that is open to me, I wish to respond to as many of the concerns expressed as I can.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about waiting times. The average time for an initial decision in all asylum cases at the end of 1999 was 13 months.
    Mr. Malins: That is far too long.
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Member is quite right. However, let us compare that with the period of 20 months that existed in April 1997. Perhaps, he will congratulate us on the figure.
    While I respond to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), may I point out as gently as I can that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) rightly picked him up on his figures? He needs to read the table rather more carefully, and it is important to point out the difference between removal and a deportation order.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) also asked me to consider the figures. In 1996, 4,821 failed asylum seekers were removed and that contrasts with 6,800 in 1998. Before Conservative Members criticise our record, perhaps they should read the table properly. We publish it for their information.
    Mr. Clappison rose—
    Mr. Lilley rose—
    Mrs. Roche: As I have mentioned the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, I shall give way to him. I must then make progress.
    Mr. Lilley: Is the Minister repudiating the figures given by the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box at the

    1097
    beginning of the debate? He said that 35,000 people were removed or deported, but the figure for the most recent year is 6,845, including voluntary departures.
    Mrs. Roche: I knew that I should not have accepted that intervention; I knew that it would not be worth while. I will answer the question, but first may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would never repudiate anything that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said? However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the table, he will see that the figure that my right hon. Friend gave was for total removals. All that he has to do is read the figures—we provide them.
    Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mrs. Roche: No.
    I wish to deal with some of the other points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) raised the issue of DNA testing. This is a—
    Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is something wrong with the hearing apparatus in the House. We all heard the Home Secretary say that 35,000 people had been removed or deported, but the figure in the document that he has published for removals and voluntary departures—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I can hear everything quite clearly from the Chair.
    Mrs. Roche: I will try to spell the matter out very softly and slowly. The figure of 6,800 is for asylum seekers; the figure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave was the total figure for removals. It was the correct figure of 35,200.
    To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, DNA testing has been considered by the Home Secretary and the Home Office. The decisions taken at the time were made in good faith. My hon. Friend also asked about the bond system. Many Members of Parliament and community organisations support the scheme, but we shall consider the results of the consultation very quickly indeed.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) raised the question of asylum seekers and returns to Kosovo. He will be aware of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement of 13 September 1999 that the concessions that had been made would end. We expect people to return and they are returning now.
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mrs. Roche: Please sit down. I can tell the House that 1,570 Kosovans have returned.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) mentioned embarkation. It is important that we use our resources not at embarkation, but at entry so that we can target those who would seek to evade our control.
    The hon. Member for Hallam mentioned general casework and students. I know that he has a particular interest in that matter, and we are dealing with it.
    1098
    The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 represents the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration legislation for three decades, and it is essential to deliver our fairer, faster and firmer system. The civil penalty is crucial in delivering that system because it will deal with those who seek to evade our control. What do we get from the Conservative party? Filibustering through the night so that the measure will not be dealt with. What do we get when we regulate immigration advisers? Opposition from the Conservative party.
    It is interesting to read what former Conservative Home Office Ministers have said. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said on the Floor of the House,
    "I have mixed feelings about the 1996 legislation".—[Official Report, 26 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 828.]
    On 29 August 1999, David Mellor said that the last Tory Government had left the immigration and asylum system in a complete and utter shambles.
    It is important that we restore integrity to the system. That is why we are providing resources and it is why we introduced the Act. We shall ensure that we honour our international obligations and deter unfounded applications. We shall make sure that this country's proud record is upheld. I ask the House to reject the Conservative motion and the Liberal Democrats' amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 147.

    Division No. 58]

    [7.2 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

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

    Baker, Norman

    Ballard, Jackie

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Livsey, Richard

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Breed, Colin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Moore, Michael

    Burnett, John

    Oaten, Mark

    Chidgey, David

    Rendel, David

    Cotter, Brian

    Sanders, Adrian

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

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Tyler, Paul

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Webb, Steve

    Hancock, Mike

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Willis, Phil

    Harvey, Nick

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Mr. Andrew Stunell and

    Keetch, Paul

    Mr. Tom Brake.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Amess, David

    Brady, Graham

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Baldry, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Beggs, Roy

    Butterfill, John

    Bercow, John

    Cash, William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Body, Sir Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Clappison, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    1099

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Collins, Tim

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Colvin, Michael

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Moss, Malcolm

    Cran, James

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Norman, Archie

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Day, Stephen

    Page, Richard

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Paice, James

    Duncan, Alan

    Paterson, Owen

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Pickles, Eric

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Faber, David

    Prior, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Randall, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Flight, Howard

    Robertson, Laurence

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ruffley, David

    Fraser, Christopher

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gale, Roger

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gibb, Nick

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gill, Christopher

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Green, Damian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Greenway, John

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Grieve, Dominic

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Steen, Anthony

    Hammond, Philip

    Streeter, Gary

    Hawkins, Nick

    Swayne, Desmond

    Heald, Oliver

    Syms, Robert

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Horam, John

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hunter, Andrew

    Thompson, William

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Townend, John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Tredinnick, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Trend, Michael

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Viggers, Peter

    Lansley, Andrew

    Walter, Robert

    Leigh, Edward

    Wardle, Charles

    Letwin, Oliver

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lidington, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Wilkinson, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Luff, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Yeo, Tim

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Madel, Sir David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Malins, Humfrey

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Tim Collins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who—I believe—is not now present, not to have followed her voice in the Division? Is it in order for her not to follow her advice to her hon. Friends to vote against the Liberal Democrat amendment, which is explicitly critical of
    1100
    the Government? Is that another example of the Lib-Lab pact, or just of the blatant incompetence of that shower over there?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would—I think—be usual for Members to vote in the way that they have exhorted others to vote, but, at the end of the day, how right hon. and hon. Members vote is entirely a matter for them.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 362.

    Division No. 59]

    [7.16 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Amess, David

    Hayes, John

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Baldry, Tony

    Horam, John

    Beggs, Roy

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Bercow, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hunter, Andrew

    Blunt, Crispin

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Boswell, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Brady, Graham

    Lansley, Andrew

    Brazier, Julian

    Leigh, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Letwin, Oliver

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Burns, Simon

    Lidington, David

    Butterfill, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Cash, William

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Loughton, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Clappison, James

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Collins, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Madel, Sir David

    Cran, James

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Day, Stephen

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Duncan, Alan

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Faber, David

    Page, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Paice, James

    Fallon, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Flight, Howard

    Pickles, Eric

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Prior, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Randall, John

    Fraser, Christopher

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Robertson, Laurence

    Gibb, Nick

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Gill, Christopher

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Ruffley, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Green, Damian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Greenway, John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Grieve, Dominic

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hammond, Philip

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    1101

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Spring, Richard

    Wardle, Charles

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Streeter, Gary

    Whittingdale, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Syms, Robert

    Wilkinson, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Willetts, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Thompson, William

    Yeo, Tim

    Townend, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tredinnick, David

    Trend, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Chidgey, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clapham, Michael

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Allan, Richard

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Allen, Graham

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Austin, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Baker, Norman

    Clelland, David

    Ballard, Jackie

    Clwyd, Ann

    Banks, Tony

    Coaker, Vernon

    Barnes, Harry

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Barron, Kevin

    Cohen, Harry

    Battle, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Bayley, Hugh

    Colman, Tony

    Beard, Nigel

    Corbett, Robin

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Corston, Jean

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cotter, Brian

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cousins, Jim

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cox, Tom

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Crausby, David

    Benton, Joe

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Berry, Roger

    Cummings, John

    Best, Harold

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Betts, Clive

    Blackman, Liz

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Blizzard, Bob

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Darvill, Keith

    Borrow, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davidson, Ian

    Brake, Tom

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Brand, Dr Peter

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

    Breed, Colin

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dawson, Hilton

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Browne, Desmond

    Denham, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burden, Richard

    Dobbin, Jim

    Burgon, Colin

    Doran, Frank

    Burnett, John

    Dowd, Jim

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Drew, David

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Ennis, Jeff

    Cann, Jamie

    Etherington, Bill

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Casale, Roger

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Cawsey, Ian

    Fisher, Mark

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Chaytor, David

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    1102

    Flint, Caroline

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Flynn, Paul

    Khabra, Piara S

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Kidney, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fyfe, Maria

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Galloway, George

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Gardiner, Barry

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Laxton, Bob

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lepper, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Levitt, Tom

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Linton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Livsey, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Grant, Bernie

    Love, Andrew

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McAllion, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McCabe, Steve

    Grocott, Bruce

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Grogan, John

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gunnell, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McDonnell, John

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hancock, Mike

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Harris, Dr Evan

    McNamara, Kevin

    Harvey, Nick

    McNulty, Tony

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    MacShane, Denis

    Healey, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hesford, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Hill, Keith

    Maxton, John

    Hinchliffe, David

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Meale, Alan

    Hoey, Kate

    Merron, Gillian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hope, Phil

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Miller, Andrew

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moore, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mountford, Kali

    Hurst, Alan

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Hutton, John

    Mudie, George

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Norris, Dan

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolveh'ton SW)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pike, Peter L

    Keetch, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pond, Chris

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

    Pope, Greg

    Pound, Stephen

    1103

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stringer, Graham

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Purchase, Ken

    Stunell, Andrew

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Rammell, Bill

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rapson, Syd

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rendel, David

    Todd, Mark

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Rogers, Allan

    Touhig, Don

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Trickett, Jon

    Rooney, Terry

    Truswell, Paul

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Tyler, Paul

    Salter, Martin

    Tynan, Bill

    Sanders, Adrian

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Savidge Malcolm

    Wareing, Robert N

    Watts David

    Sawford, Phil

    Webb, Steve

    Sedgemore, Brian

    White Brian

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Singh, Marsha

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Willis, Phil

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wills, Michael

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wilson, Brian

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Wise, Audrey

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wood, Mike

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Woolas, Phil

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

    Worthington, Tony

    Soley, Clive

    Wray, James

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spellar, John

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wyatt, Derek

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Development Policy
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
    That this House urges the Government to disown the Crow Report and its recommendation of 1.1 million houses to be built in the South-East; condemns the Government's practice of bulldozing homes and walking away from the regeneration of run-down town and city areas; requests an urgent response to the proposals in the Rogers Report for urban renewal; stresses the connections between planning and transport policies; and calls for a change to planning policy to encourage one Britain and urban renewal instead of the divisive policies the Government is pursuing.
    Hon. Members: Where is Archie?
    Mr. Green: I should apologise to the many Government Members who are admirers of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). I advise them all to book early for Environment questions next Tuesday.
    We have brought the debate to the House because the Government stand condemned on two counts: first, they have shown themselves to be completely uninterested in protecting the countryside; and, secondly, they have shown themselves to be neglectful of the interests of city centres that need regeneration. The combination of those two failures of Government policy has led to despair in the countryside and anger in the cities.
    Let me start with the ignorance and neglect that the Government have shown toward the countryside, which will for ever be symbolised by the now notorious remark made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
    "the green belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it."
    That is perhaps the only example of the right hon. Gentleman speaking with complete clarity and accuracy since he took office. The only charitable course of action in respect of his use of language is to laugh, but there is far more serious hypocrisy afoot. His deputy, the Minister for the Environment, said before the general election:
    "we will make the next Labour Government the first truly green Government that Britain has ever seen."
    That is the standard that the Government set themselves. Let us investigate their performance on the Crow report against that standard.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman reminded his hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) that, according to the conventions of the House, we would give him an easy ride first time round.
    Does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate to table a motion with the title "Northern Cities and Southern Green Fields"? Does he realise that there are many acres of beautiful countryside in the north of the country? Does he ever visit the north? Will he dissociate himself from the title?
    Mr. Green: If that is the best that the special advisers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

    1105
    Regions can come up with as a handout, I shall not take any more interventions. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to investigate the subject of the debate, he might know that the Crow report is specifically about the south-east of England. It blithely proposes to put 1.1 million extra homes in the south-east.
    The report is one of the shoddiest, least-well-argued and anti-environmental documents ever produced by the planning profession. It takes us straight back to the 1960s, when planners looked at the demographic trends, thought of a housing number, added a bit for luck and insisted that those houses be built, whatever the consequences for the environment.
    A really green Government who meant to stick to their principles would have thrown the report out at the first opportunity. Regardless of those principles, the report cuts across the Government's declared policy.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative Opposition will move to a policy whereby, instead of housing numbers being imposed on local authorities from above, leaving them no control, local authorities will in future have a much greater say in the housing numbers that they must provide in their areas?
    Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is what we have proposed. We want to give more planning power to local people and take away the Government's centralising tendencies.
    The Government should have thrown out the Crow report. Instead, they have proceeded to play their usual game of nods, winks, nudges, leaks and half-truths, leaving no one knowing where they stand, and leaving many people angry—not just people in the south-east of England but a much wider coalition, who will never trust the Government again.
    Serplan—the south-east regional planning committee—has pointed out a large number of deficiencies in Crow, not least that it brushes aside the problems of congestion and pressure on services. That does not seem to have moved the Government, nor does the Council for the Protection of Rural England's response to Crow. The CPRE said:
    "The Government should reject these nightmare plans for building in the South East. They spell sprawl and congestion in England's most overcrowded region and continuing urban decay and social exclusion in other parts of the country."
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), then I must make some progress.
    Ms Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman is setting out the views of a range of organisations, yet before that he said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have rejected the Crow report's proposals immediately. Is not the point to listen, consider and consult, and to ensure that such responses are forthcoming so that the Secretary of State is well informed when he finally makes his decision?
    Mr. Green: The response to Crow has been universally negative, and I would expect the hon. Lady, whose own
    1106
    constituency is under threat, to share that view. I shall stop complaining if the Government this evening reject Crow hook, line and sinker, but they have not done so. They have deliberately been sending out leaks, nods and winks for the past six months, without letting us know what they think. That is creating widespread anger across the south-east, not least in my constituency, which is particularly targeted for the bulldozers by Crow.
    Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend recall that practically the first action of the Deputy Prime Minister, without listening to anyone, was to agree to 10,000 houses on the green belt outside the new town of Stevenage? In that, he was supported by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), who is not in her place.
    Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is characteristically correct and points out one of the betrayals of the green fields that the Deputy Prime Minister has committed.
    Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: Not again; once is enough for the hon. Lady.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Green: I shall make progress. The only support for the Crow report comes from Professor Christine Whitehead, who is an adviser to the Government and who believes that we need 10 new towns the size of Basingstoke in the south-east of England.
    Professor Whitehead, with commendable honesty that has so far failed to grip those on the Government Front Bench, said to The Times:
    "I don't mind covering a bit of the South East in concrete, to be honest."
    At least she is honest. By contrast, the Government's response has been to dither and dodge the issue ever since it came up.
    Two weeks ago the Government leaked to a Sunday newspaper the prospect of what they call "millennium towns", new settlements of 50,000 people, one of which they wanted to plonk down on the green fields in my constituency. I asked the Department a number of questions to elucidate the truth behind that leak.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), replied that proposals for a new town had been put forward and that the Secretary of State would shortly consult on draft changes to the draft regional planning guidance. We are to be consulted, are we? Do not believe it for a minute.
    Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister revealed to a Fabian Society and SERA—Socialist Environmental Resources Association—conference that he has taken the decision already. He claimed that the Government would not be concreting over the south-east. He went on to say:
    "We will be recognising the needs of continuing economic growth and providing for future prosperity"—
    weasel words which show that he believes in a bit of concrete over the south-east, just like Professor Whitehead.

    1107
    The Deputy Prime Minister went on to say:
    "We will want to make the best use of major transport modes and utilise transport corridors. This includes ensuring that the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link brings as much benefit to the surrounding areas as possible."
    Those are real weasel words. The benefit that he wants to bring is a large pile of concrete all over the green fields of east Kent.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman's party's policy extend to allowing local councils to determine planning applications for out-of-town supermarkets?
    Mr. Green: We do believe in greater local powers across the planning system. We are consistent in that. I should be interested to know the Government's view on that.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead rose—
    Mr. Green: It is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister is not going to consult. He has already decided. There is further dishonesty. He has clearly decided that part of the Crow report will be implemented, yet his spin to the press yesterday, as quoted in the Evening Standard, was "Prescott shuts door on homes boom".
    Dr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: No doubt the Government wanted to reassure everyone in the south-east, but one has only to read the story to discover that, after all his months of dithering, the Deputy Prime Minister has not rejected Crow. He has looked at the Serplan figure, which is 750,000, and the Crow figure of 1.1 million, and he has split the difference.
    The Deputy Prime Minister's figure will still mean that large swathes of the green land that people in England value will be gone. He knows, as do those on the Government Front Bench, that once it has gone, it is gone for ever. He will have written on his political tombstone, "The man who ripped up the green fields of England."
    Dr. Whitehead rose—
    Mr. Green: Hon. Members from other regions—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) must not remain standing if the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House is clearly not giving way.
    Mr. Green: Hon. Members from other regions need not think that this is just a south-eastern problem. There are already murmurings of hundreds of thousands of extra homes needed in the south-west of England.
    I suggest to the Prime Minister that before he takes his annual day trip to the countryside tomorrow, where he will lecture people on how they should stop moaning about the lack of rural services, the destruction of British agriculture, the closure of their post offices, and the extra
    1108
    petrol taxes levied by the Government, and start learning to love him as they have been told, perhaps he should be aware that he will face one more legitimate grievance.
    As well as farmers, drivers, shoppers, postal workers and fishermen, the Prime Minister will have environmentalists after him. They will be telling him that life in the countryside is not the idyllic vision painted by the Cabinet Office report that we will see tomorrow, but a struggle against an uncaring and ignorant Government.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend mentioned the south-west. Is he aware that at the Dartington Church of England school in my constituency, the sewer is so small that it cannot cope with the amount of water that goes down it when there is a storm? As a result, the sewage pops up in the basins of the primary school—the sewer is too full because too many homes have been built without the proper infrastructure being in place. Does he agree that we should not build new homes if the infrastructure cannot cope? May I draw to his attention my private Member's Bill to be debated on 24 March, which deals with the matter?
    Mr. Green: My hon. Friend gives a vivid example of what happens when building is too much for the infrastructure. We shall take the advert for his private Member's Bill as the commercial break in my speech.
    The Deputy Prime Minister has spent the best part of three years fiddling at the edges of the planning system, without making it integrated, joined up, modern or any of the other buzz words that the Government substitute for principles. He said that he would move on from predict and provide for housing plans. Sadly, he has replaced it with dither and destroy. In the countryside, things can only get worse under this Government.
    The Government stand condemned as the enemy of the countryside, but that probably does not worry Labour Members. The few Labour Members who were elected in mainly rural seats expect to be here only temporarily and are already planning what to do next. That may apply less strongly to Labour Members who represent inner-city constituencies. They expect to be here for more than another year. It is refreshing to witness the way in which they are beginning to come out of the woodwork and endorse our criticisms of the Government.
    This week, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), after courageously and honestly deciding that he could not stomach sitting on the Front Bench any longer, blew the gaffe. In The Guardian on Wednesday, he criticised the Government for their "wholly London perspective", which, he is reported as saying, leads to
    "'very often a lack of understanding' of issues in Merseyside and the regions."
    Intriguingly, the article continues:
    "New Labour had become 'a pejorative term in many people's eyes', which he no longer used."
    The Prime Minister may believe that the north-south divide does not exist, but his candid friends in the north clearly do not believe him.
    The hon. Member for Walton is not alone. When the Prime Minister commissioned the famous Cabinet Office report in a desperate attempt to show that he was not letting down the inner cities, Mr. Bill Midgley, president of the north-east chamber of commerce, dismissed it as

    1109
    "whitewash". He said that Ministers were highly selective within regions, and that anyone could play that game. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) suggested that the Prime Minister should put up or shut up on the issue. Many of us heartily endorse that sentiment.
    The Government fail on two counts: they are unwilling to protect the landscape in relatively prosperous areas and unwilling to take action to regenerate our cities—in the south or the north.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Last year, I read on page 56 of my local newspaper that the hon. Gentleman had visited my constituency. As he drove north of Lowestoft, did he notice a large, out-of-town superstore? Did he realise that the local council had unanimously rejected the application for it when the Conservative party was in government? Does he know that the previous Government overruled the local council to grant permission for building an Asda superstore? How does he square that with his comments about granting power to local councils?
    Mr. Green: I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he had a prepared intervention for someone other than me. Unfortunately, he is insufficiently flexible to devise an intervention on his own.
    I shall present some practical suggestions, which we have made public. The Government can adopt them if they wish; they would help cities in the north and in the south.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: There is an acid test in the life of every Government and, as my hon. Friend considers the north-south divide, we recall the Prime Minister's rhetoric. The acid test comes this week, when we await the decision on whether the Synchrotron award will be given to Oxfordshire or Cheshire. If it is awarded outside the north-west, which has a zone of natural advantage, we shall have proof that the Prime Minister is not sincere about wanting to support the north-west.
    Mr. Green: My hon. Friend has been fighting hard for the interests of his constituents. He has done that alongside many trade unionists whom he met today. I hope that the Government will take note of that.
    The Government should set higher brownfield targets; they should be increased to two thirds of all new housing. The Government should do more to release redundant land and buildings from the public sector to the private sector for redevelopment. Run-down housing stock should be transferred from the public to the private sector for redevelopment. The Government could give homesteading grants to provide financial incentives for individuals and co-operatives to transform run-down, dilapidated council houses and flats. The Government could do more to restore contaminated land. They could set tougher penalties for anti-social activity, which makes life difficult in some of the deprived estates in our cities.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Green: I shall not give way again. Most important, the Government should revise planning guidance so that local people can have more control over the planning
    1110
    system. Instead of Ministers making decisions in Whitehall, councils should be given more discretion to determine the amount of greenfield development that they want. We should make it easier for councils to develop in the inner cities, where regeneration is possible, and more difficult for development to occur on green fields.
    We have proposed a raft of policies, which are available for the Government to steal, if they wish. If they believe that that is beneath their dignity, perhaps they would like to look to their own side. Last summer, the Labour peer Lord Rogers produced an interesting and full report, which provided many options for regenerating our cities. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister mumbled that it was all jolly interesting and that the Government would consider it carefully. Since then, there has been a deafening silence, which means that the Department is paralysed at the prospect of making a decision.
    Our cities are supposed to be an urgent problem for the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister. It is so urgent that they have put the Rogers report on a shelf in the hope that we shall forget it. I assure the Minister that we will not. The Minister could bring a constructive element to the debate if he gave a firm date for the publication of an urban White Paper, which gave the Government's full reaction to the Rogers report. If he cannot do that, the House must draw its own conclusions.
    It is not only cities that feel the Government's slowness in producing their thoughts. I commend the Government for the consistency in their attitude to the rural White Paper. Since they told us that they would produce a rural White Paper, they claim that it will be published in the next season of the year, or the next season but one. Last summer, they claimed that it would be published in the late autumn; in the early autumn, it was scheduled for the new year; before Christmas, publication was set for the spring; last month it was set for the summer. I heard recently that it will not be published until this autumn. At such a rate of progress the Government will be saved from their indecision. The collapse of large parts of agriculture and the over-development of many green fields will mean that no rural life will remain about which to produce a rural White Paper. The rural White Paper is another example of dither and destroy.
    Conservative Members, who care about protecting the countryside and regenerating cities, are frustrated because we are asking the Government to do something that is popular and right. However, they seem determined to wait for years before plunging in the wrong direction. They must have noticed that their attitude creates anger in communities across the country, in all areas with all sorts of social conditions.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that the Government are failing the countryside and the cities and creating a divided society. With every month that passes, it is increasingly obvious that the Government have no understanding of, no interest in and no solutions to those serious problems.
    7.49 pm
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the Government's commitment to create high-quality, desirable, safe places to live without eating up the countryside; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt

    1111
    and believes the Government's inclusive and strategic approach to planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; recognises that this Government is planning for economic success and that there is an opportunity to use growth to create better and more sustainable communities and improve the quality of life; welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy; supports the Government's target of building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land; and welcomes the Government's determination to ensure that the whole country shares in the benefits of economic recovery."
    First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his new appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. That said, the hon. Gentleman may feel a little apprehensive knowing that he is the fourth shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in less than three years.
    May I also say how disappointed I am that the hon. Gentleman has declined to open tonight's debate, despite the trail on the "Today" programme, which indicated that this was to be his great opening event? In case it is suggested that that was, perhaps, due to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is not opening the debate, let me say that it was made clear last week that I would be doing so. It was also made clear that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) would be opening for the Opposition. Clearly, he is not available and it is interesting that his successor has not chosen to open the debate.
    Perhaps the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is too modest. Perhaps he is aware that he is inadequately briefed on a difficult subject; or perhaps he has been too busy with his business interests. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition—who I understand worked closely with him when they were at McKinsey's—was well aware of the extensive business interests of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells when he made the appointment, not least his association with Asda and the US giant Wal-Mart.
    I hear that the hon. Gentleman announced this afternoon that he is giving up his directorship and consultancy post with Asda. I welcome that, although I question whether it is right that he should retain a major shareholding in Wal-Mart which, as the House knows, has substantial interests in the retail sector and planning issues, which are highly relevant to the subject of this debate.
    Mr. Archie Norman: I assume that the Minister will shortly come to the substance of the debate and move on from these dreary and pathetic issues. Is he aware that the major shareholding to which he referred is 0 per cent?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to hear that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us about his shareholding—
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During my time in the House, if Ministers, or anyone else, say something that is denied, they usually substantiate it or apologise and withdraw. The Minister should do so.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Minister.
    Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) had not leapt up intemperately,
    1112
    I was about to say that I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells had done so. I was acting on the basis of the "Register of Members' Interests", which was prepared on 1 December 1999 and which declared under "Registrable shareholdings" a holding by the hon. Gentleman in Wal-Mart. If the hon. Gentleman has disposed of his shares since then, I am pleased to hear it, but I hope that he will accept that I spoke in good faith on the basis of the latest available information in that register.
    The House should pay attention to such matters. I think that we would also welcome an indication of the hon Gentleman's intentions for his other directorships—in companies such as French plc, Maybeat Ltd., Knutsford, and the wonderfully named Nocktwice. This is an important issue, which is not only of concern to the House. As The Times said today, the hon. Gentleman's business connections would be
    "the voice of vested interest, whether the issue was planning laws or car parking charges".
    Mr. Baldry: We are all genuinely pleased to see the Minister back in much better health. However, my constituents will not understand this knockabout. Concerns on the Crow report are such that parish churches in certain villages are the only buildings that are large enough to hold the public meetings to complain about the report—such a thing has not happened for a long time. As part of the consultation process under the draft regional planning guidance, I invite the Minister to visit Oxfordshire to hear at first hand the concerns of the people who live there about the impact of the new planning guidance on our county.
    Mr. Raynsford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As he will know, we are considering carefully the recommendations of both the Serplan report and the Crow panel and we will make our decisions clear in the near future. Until we do so, it is not appropriate for us to participate in any public debate. However, we will be happy to debate the issue fully subsequently. Also, it is a matter of concern in the House and throughout the country that our decisions on matters as important as this should be taken impartially and solely from the point of view of the public interest. There should be no question of any other interest influencing our decisions.
    I gather that, when the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was at Asda, he used to—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the Minister will agree that it is time to move on. He is supposed to be speaking to the amendment and I trust that he will do just that.
    Mr. Raynsford: I will come immediately to the point in hand. I was simply observing the absence of the shadow Secretary of State from the Dispatch Box when the Conservative party announced on the "Today" programme this morning that this would be his first test—a test that he has spectacularly failed.
    Whoever dreamt up the title of tonight's debate, "The Two Britains", could have done with some help. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Wokingham decided to use this echo of Disraeli. I will miss him at the Dispatch Box, but I suppose that it is not surprising that,

    1113
    unsure of his future in a turbulent and demoralised Conservative Party, the right hon. Gentleman should be desperately hankering after past glories in turning to Disraeli for inspiration. Whoever chose the title, he clearly did not spend much time reading Disraeli. Had he done so, he could hardly have failed to recognise Disraeli's powerful message and how different that was from the simplistic, badly researched and unconvincing case put across by the official Opposition this evening—a pale sad shadow of the Conservative party, which was a party of government.
    The two nations of which Disraeli spoke:
    "between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets, who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by different food and ordered by different manners",
    were not dwellers in different regions—north and south. They lived in close proximity to each other in almost every corner of Victorian Britain. They were, of course, the rich and the poor. The shocking division between rich and poor that Disraeli chronicled remains all too visible.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: It sounds as though the Minister is describing the difference between old and new Labour.
    Mr. Raynsford: I was describing the difference between the glorious days of the Conservative party in the time of Disraeli and its sad, pale shadow today.
    That was the division that Disraeli described. It was not between north and south, but between rich and poor. Those divisions got much wider under the 18 years of Conservative Government, despite their—[Interruption.] Let us look at the previous Government's record on employment region by region between 1979 and 1995. Employment in the north was down 10.6 per cent.; in the north-west, 11.4 per cent.; in Yorkshire and Humberside, 5.8 per cent.; in London, 11 per cent.; and, in the west midlands, 9.7 per cent.
    There is more. Under the Tories, the top 10th of the population got almost two thirds better off, while the bottom 10th became 17 per cent. worse off. In 1994, the gap between the highest and lowest paid worker was higher than at any time since records began in 1886, just five years after Disraeli's death. That was the Conservative Government's record on dividing the nation, and that is the legacy which the Government have inherited.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: No, I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
    The challenge that the Government have willingly taken up is how to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots—the inequalities that scar our society—and how to tackle the evils of social exclusion, unemployment, homelessness and despair, to which all too many of our fellow citizens were condemned by the previous Conservative Government's policies. This Government's one-nation policies are addressing those problems, which exist all over Britain.
    Poor economic and social conditions are not confined to any one part of Britain. Of the 150 most deprived wards in the country, 42 are in London and the south-east,
    1114
    and 66 are in the south, and 22 of London's 33 districts feature in the top 100 deprived areas. Unemployment in London is second only to that in the north-east.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that what was remarkable about the speech the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was that, while the debate is notionally about not simply the south and the green belt, but about the north, there was almost no reference to that, and certainly no analysis? My hon. Friend's present point is the most telling of all. Even within the south, there are enormous pockets of poverty, of which the hon. Gentleman seems blissfully, and, in his case, I assume, happily, ignorant.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The absence of any significant reference to the problems of poverty throughout Britain and particularly in the north by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was something which all hon. Members will have noted.
    Mr. Blizzard: Representing Britain's most easterly constituency, I find that debates about the north and the south, and speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), show a neglect of the east, which is what we suffered for 18 years. This Government's policy of tackling deprivation, poverty and unemployment, wherever it is, is the right way forward, and that is certainly appreciated by my constituents.
    Mr. Raynsford: I well recall a visit that I made to my hon. Friend's constituency to see the real problems of deprivation in Lowestoft and areas of the eastern region, and he is right to highlight the fact that problems of poverty and deprivation exist throughout Britain and are not confined to any one region.
    Regional averages mask enormous variations in social and economic conditions. For example, in Yorkshire and Humberside, GDP per head in 1996 ranged from 30 per cent. above the national average in York to 35 per cent. below in Barnsley and Doncaster. In the south-east, GDP in Berkshire was 38 per cent. above the national average, while in East Sussex it was 26 per cent. below. Those are real variations within existing regions, north and south.
    Likewise, the media have greatly exaggerated the idea of a north-south shift in the population. Although England's three northern regions lose people each year to out-migration, for every 100 people that move away, at least 95 people move in. The total number of people lost by net migration from those three regions is just 10,000 each year, and that is largely offset by natural growth in the population. Most importantly for this debate, most of that regional out-migration is to neighbouring regions. Anyone who looks at the hard data will see that few people make the much-hyped north-south leap of which the Tories try to make such capital.
    The Opposition clearly did not bother to look up their facts before making suppositions about trends that do not exist. They need to look at what is happening within each region. Households tend to move out of our cities—the six metropolitan counties and Greater London lose more than 90,000 people each year through net migration to the less urban areas surrounding them.
    If the Opposition look only at the regional averages, they will only ever learn part of the story. All regions contain pockets of deprivation and prosperity, areas of

    1115
    population decline and growth. We recognise the need to have in place the right conditions for growth throughout the country, and policies to tackle specific problems of deprivation and decline wherever they occur.
    How should we do that? As we never tire of reminding the Opposition, we have set up regional development agencies to target areas of under-performance and generate sustainable and more balanced economic growth in their regions. For the first time, regional strategies set out how less prosperous areas in each of our regions can gain a share in, and contribute to, Britain's increasing prosperity.
    Just as the regional development agencies are beginning to make a real impact, the Tories, with their uncanny knack of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, are calling for their abolition. It would be a matter of deep regret if anyone took them seriously, and if it were not so maladroit, that the Opposition now want to abolish the RDAs—although I gather not those in Scotland and Wales—the regional planning structures and the regional chambers, the new deal, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. That is the policy of despair, not the politics of a serious party that might aspire to Government.
    Mr. David Prior: Can the hon. Gentleman name one thing that the East of England development agency has done to alleviate poverty in East Anglia?
    Mr. Raynsford: The East of England development agency is already working in a number of different ways. It has submitted a detailed strategy for activity within the area. Its representatives have met the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to outline what will be done in the regions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) so rightly pointed out, the Government are tackling the problems that were neglected by the previous Government.
    Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: No, I have given way once and I must make progress.
    Housing is one fundamental element in people's living standards. Unlike Conservative Members, the Government are committed to offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home. Over the life of this Parliament, we are making available an additional £5 billion for investment in housing in England. Resources for housing investment by local authorities from April next year have been increased by 48 per cent. over the previous year, the largest increase in the housing investment programme that has ever been made, following long years of cuts under the Conservative Government. That investment is helping to tackle the serious backlog of poor condition council housing, to build new affordable homes in areas of shortage and to tackle the problem of low demand which was ignored throughout the Tory years.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the rationale for cutting the budget of the Housing Corporation in the north-west by nearly 20 per cent. this year?
    Mr. Raynsford: The Housing Corporation's budget has not been cut by 20 per cent., it has increased this year.
    1116
    The Housing Corporation's regional allocation, like that given to local authorities, is determined by formulae. In the case of the Housing Corporation, that is the housing needs index, and, in the case of the local authorities, a slightly different one called the general needs index. Because the HNI was based on the 1996 house condition survey, which showed significant changes from the previous data, the improvement in housing conditions in the north-west resulted in a lesser allocation. Overall, when one considers the allocations to the local authorities and housing associations combined, the north-west region has some £70 million of additional housing investment this year.
    Mr. Gummer: Under which Government did that improvement in housing in the north-west take place? Was it under the same Government whom the hon. Gentleman was attacking for not doing anything about housing?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to pay tribute to the good work of all the local authorities and housing associations in the north-west, many of which I know well, which successfully secured significant improvements in their area during those years.
    Our forthcoming housing Green Paper will set out a series of radical new proposals for the further modernisation of housing policy and lay the foundations for ending the appalling legacy of homelessness, housing deprivation and social divisiveness that we inherited in 1997.
    Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give way, but I should like to make some progress first.
    Crucial to building a successful and united country is our policy of urban renaissance. The flight from the cities, which was such a characteristic of the Tory years, must be reversed. The notion that urban living is second best needs to be overturned. We want to make our towns and cities places in which people choose to live and lift the threat of unnecessary development from the countryside.
    People also want the tide to turn on dreary and soulless house building. No one wants more of the indifferent collections of little boxes that were allowed to spread across our countryside like a rash. Unfortunately, many of those developments, which I regret were a characteristic of development patterns under the previous Government, are still in the pipeline, particularly in the south-east. That must change and we have made it clear that it will.
    The creation of better-designed places where people want to live will be a strong message in our new planning policy guidance for housing—PPG3—which we shall publish soon. We shall make it clear that planning authorities should promote developments that bring together environmental, transport and planning best practice to create places that have their own distinct identity and are in harmony with the local environment. New development should help to create safe, attractive places of a quality that will endure.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituency is an

    1117
    excellent example of precisely the good planning that he has described? Was it not unfortunate that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is on record as being extremely rude about my constituency, did not see fit to give way to allow him to put that right on the record?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the considerable qualities of Milton Keynes. There are many good things in her area and she is right to condemn unthinking, ill-informed attacks by people who probably have little or no practical knowledge of that part of the country.
    We shall make it clear in our new guidance that new developments should help to make places safe and attractive and should be built to design standards that will endure. We shall not beat about the bush. When applying for planning permission, housebuilders will have to show how they have taken the need for good design into account. Planning authorities will be expected to reject poor design, particularly when their decisions are supported by clear planning policies and design guidance. We shall support them on appeal.
    Mr. Steen: The Minister talks about good design, which is important, but does he agree that it is equally important to have sewers and schools in place when new homes are built? There must be enough facilities so that people already living in an area are not prejudiced. How will PPG3 ensure that people who already live in the countryside do not have their lives ruined because there is insufficient infrastructure for new homes?
    Mr. Raynsford: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who always enlivens our proceedings, that design is more than aesthetics; it is about creating the correct environment and ensuring that places are safe for people to lead pleasant lives without fear of the undesirable consequences that he described.
    The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recently produced a welcome report on planning for housing and I say to the Chairman and its members that I shall respond to the report and that PPG3 will be published very shortly. The Committee will know that planning guidance has quasi-legal status and takes time to prepare. An enormous number of responses have been made to the consultation, including one from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and we are taking them seriously. The document is a key plank in countering the irresponsible development policies that were pursued for more than a decade in the early years of the previous Administration and which threatened the green belt and gobbled up the countryside.
    We take no lessons from the Opposition. On the profligate use of greenfield sites, hon. Members should look at what they did on out-of-town shopping. During their 18 years in office, nearly 13 million sq m of out-of-town shopping floor space was developed in shopping centres, retail parks and superstores. Superstores alone added 5 million sq m and half all out-of-town shopping—much of it in the south-east—was approved and built under the previous Administration in seven ruinous years from 1986–92.
    The disastrous consequences have been recognised and policies changed. To his credit, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—I am delighted that he
    1118
    is present—began that process, and we have tightened further the restrictions on inappropriate out-of-town developments with the clear support of the Select Committee's recent report. In the same way that the tide has been turned against a proliferation of out-of-town shopping centres that damage our town centres, so, too, the tide is turning in favour of housing development in our towns and on brownfield sites. We are promoting a sequential approach to delivering land for new homes, which will prioritise the re-use of brownfield sites.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: May we take it that the Government prefer building on brownfield sites and that they will rescind the permission to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency? That is the largest approval ever given for housebuilding on the green belt.
    Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman knows from previous debates in the House that the decision to proceed with that designation was taken by the local authority, quite properly, and it decided to proceed because of a perception—for which there is considerable support from people who have looked at the matter carefully, including planning professionals—that it is better to concentrate development in an area close to transport linkages and other facilities rather than allow a proliferation of development throughout the wider surrounding rural area. I know that that is a difficult issue and that there are different points of view, but he knows only too well that the decision was properly taken by the local authority. It would be quite improper for the Government to intervene belatedly in the way that he suggests.
    Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that developments such as the west of Stevenage development are important to achieving a balance? Although the majority of houses should be built on urban redeveloped land, some are necessary in areas where a new town can be constructed. If it were not for the west of Stevenage development, areas of Stevenage and Watford would experience more building and the amenities available to the people who already live in the town centres would be decreased. They have little green space around them so they want to protect some of it.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly articulates the concerns of many people in urban areas who do not want urban green spaces to be built on. We support that. Our policy priority is to secure development, wherever possible, on brownfield sites. When that is not possible—we recognise that it is not always—it is essential that sustainability principles apply. I described them in response to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
    Mr. Blizzard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: Once more, but then I must make progress because this is a brief debate. I have given way to my hon. Friend already.
    Mr. Blizzard: Before my hon. Friend moves on from brownfield sites, may I draw his attention to a large £3 million redevelopment that is under way on a derelict

    1119
    brownfield site in Lowestoft? It was funded by the East of England development agency, and that may be of interest to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior).
    Mr. Raynsford: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to come in with a useful and apposite reference that responded well to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior).
    As I have made clear, we are also committed to a 60 per cent. target for recycling land. We believe that that is tough, but achievable, and Lord Rogers' urban task force agrees. That is not only a question of maximising the use of recycled land. We must end the profligate waste of land through the type of low-density greenfield development that characterised the Tory years. The facts speak for themselves: between 1989 and 1997, 58 per cent. of all new housing developments in the south-east were at densities of less than 20 houses per hectare. That was the previous Government's legacy, and it has to change. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, "We've got to stop wasting land." We want local authorities to look critically at the standards that they apply to new development.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: On wasting existing brownfield sites, will my hon. Friend ensure that local authorities have powers to act when private landlords price town centre sites unreasonably and make sure that developers are not able to use them to enhance housing and urban regeneration? There are real difficulties as many such sites are derelict. Will he consider bringing them back into use?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the difficulty of land assembly in many urban areas. As he will probably know, we have commissioned a detailed study of compulsory purchase practice and are looking at ways of improving the procedures to ensure that it is possible for land assembly to take place while the interests of all parties are respected. A delicate balance has to be achieved, but we are seeking a way forward.
    Raising densities does not represent either a pipe dream or a return to the high-rise developments of the 1960s and 1970s. I want better-quality housing design that includes modern variations on popular traditional-style layouts to improve the quality of life in our towns and cities and reduce development in the countryside. It can be done, and it has been done, as developments such as Poundbury in Dorset and Coin street in London have clearly demonstrated. We can achieve better-quality housing and use less land with a popular mix of housing. Even on suburban sites, net development densities of about 50 dwellings per hectare can be achieved with a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses with gardens. Few would quibble with the Government's wish to see quality places that people will cherish.
    We will soon announce the conclusions that we shall reach on regional planning guidance for the south-east and eastern regions. As all Members know, we cannot and will not pre-empt that announcement. Let me make this crystal clear, however: our response, and our approach to the future development needs of both regions—and, indeed, others—will be firmly based on the principles that
    1120
    I have set out today, and our commitment both to encouraging an urban renaissance and to the protection of our countryside.
    In contrast to the previous Government, who presided over a profligate and unsustainable development bonanza that gobbled up millions of hectares of greenfield land, the present Government have developed what is probably the most co-ordinated, thoughtful and realistic approach to planning and regeneration that we have seen for many decades. A number of the new policies are already in place; others will follow in the near future. They will, of course, take a little time to work—there is a lot of damage to make good—but what I have described is a joined-up, long-term programme, with clear objectives in mind and with huge benefits for all our country, urban and rural, north and south. What a contrast that is with the piecemeal, knee-jerk attempt by a non-credible Opposition to grab headlines by distorting a few selectively chosen statistics.
    We care about the countryside. We care about our towns, and we care about our cities. We care about all our regions. We are the party of one nation—one Britain. I commend the amendment warmly to the House.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sure that all hon. Members share my disappointment that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was not here to open the debate. I, for one, would have liked to ask him some questions about the policies that he has expounded in recent months—not least how he squares cutting bureaucracy for developers with giving more power to local people. I wonder whether that policy will continue.
    Like many other Members, I am also disappointed that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is not at the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that everyone awaits next Tuesday's Environment questions with great interest.
    This afternoon, answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister had a great opportunity to start the process of showing the Government's commitment. He could have said that the Government were going to come clean about whether they would provide match funding for areas that have been granted objective 1 status in Wales, the south-west, Merseyside and Sheffield. If he had said that the Government now had every intention of honouring those commitments, the message would have gone out to those areas, loud and clear, that the Government were on the ball and would deliver. I am sure that people living there are greatly disappointed that the opportunity was lost.
    I spent 30 years in local government, during which time I chaired a local planning authority in what was probably the country's most densely populated city, and led the largest local authority in the country, with a great responsibility for a sizeable chunk of the south-east. I had expected to discover what the Tories had to say. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did not allow me to intervene; had he done so, I would have asked what responsibility he felt he and his colleagues had for what had happened between 1979 and 1997. As planning chairman and as leader of a local authority,

    1121
    I suffered weekly from the overturning of planning decisions and from the pressure that is placed on local authorities to do more—and from not being able to receive a straight answer, even when Ministers were confronted by delegations of members and the public.
    I was interested to read the document "Common Sense Revolution in Regeneration", and to note the sudden conversion experienced by the Tories who wrote it. They speak of restoring contaminated land. Where were they in the 1980s and 1990s, when authorities such as mine and many others throughout the country begged for resources to free up brownfield sites and enable them to be developed? The price for the failure to do that was the taking of hundreds, if not thousands, of the green acres that the Tories now long to protect. They did nothing; and there is no disclaimer in the document. There is not even a footnote saying, "Whatever you do, be careful: there is a denial at the back that you can use in case of emergency." Moreover, we heard nothing from the Tories today about their current position.
    In a section entitled "Revised Planning Guidance", the Tories say:
    "We will streamline the planning process in rundown areas and make brownfield development easier."
    Why now?
    Mr. Norman: What is your policy?
    Mr. Hancock: Do not worry; we shall come to that. You had years in power, and we are now suffering the results. It is a bit rich for you to come here—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember to use the correct parliamentary language.
    Mr. Hancock: It is a bit rich of Her Majesty's Opposition to present a motion that does little other than cry crocodile tears. It would have been nice if someone had owned up to the part that the Conservative party played in creating the present mess.
    I entirely agree with the Minister about the difficulty of judging the north-south divide, but it is certainly not right for Members to talk down our northern cities. We need only look at the success stories in Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds, and the huge advances that have been made in Liverpool and Sheffield, in a very short time, under Liberal Democrat control. The figures speak for themselves.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the Rogers report, the Labour Government's policy is already being enacted in Liverpool? The regeneration company Liverpool Vision—in which the regional development agency works with the local authority and the private sector—has already begun its work. Perhaps he will thank the Government for giving Liverpool city council additional financial support, thus enabling the Liberal Democrats to freeze the council tax. Will he urge them to do the same next year, as the Government have given them yet more funding?
    Mr. Hancock: No doubt everyone can produce similar stories from that area. The hon. Member for Liverpool,
    1122
    Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is a classic example in this regard. He has spoken of the needs of his community. Just over the edge of his constituency, the Kensington community has been given new deal status: it will receive £50 million of investment over the next 10 years. A stone's throw away, a similar community consisting of great people struggling with similar problems will receive nothing.
    The hon. Member for Walton said to the House, to the Government—I hope—and certainly to his constituents that areas should not continue to be run down while waiting for the result of pilot schemes in other areas. That must be what was behind his leaving the Government so dramatically: he must have seen the dissatisfaction that his constituents saw daily a stone's throw from where they lived. It is not good enough to try to massage the truth.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was right to mention Liverpool, but since the Liberal Democrats have been in control there has been record investment of £1 billion in the city. Liverpool has been voted the top United Kingdom day visitor destination. Office developments in Princess dock are going ahead without gap funding, for the first time; and 4,500 homes have been transferred from council control to new social landlords, thus unlocking much-needed capital to improve houses. The story goes on—and that came about because a Liberal Democrat-controlled council had the strength, and the commitment to the city, to bring it about.
    The same message is beginning to emerge in Sheffield. It is early days, but already a real change is coming over the city. I could list a great many incentives that are already beginning to bring it into the fold. It is not good enough that—
    Dr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman recall a development between his constituency and mine, which is the largest out-of-town development along the M27? Does he recall also the party that was in control of the council that gave permission for that development, and the consequences that ensued?
    Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is right. I intended to give credit to him for his achievements as leader of Southampton city council. We represent similar cities. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) is in his place, and he also can bear witness. Mistakes have been made by local authorities. However, the local authority to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) referred was squeezed into a difficult corner. We must try to arrive at policies that allow a reasonable balance. The development could have taken place in the Southampton docks, for example, if Southampton had been open-minded enough to attract it on to a brownfield site. However, millions of pounds would have been needed to clean up the site and make the docks ready for the development. The money was not available because the Tory Government would not provide it. As a result, the development went elsewhere and put pressure on the green belt, and so the story continues.
    Portsmouth is a densely populated island. However, as part of its commitment, it is taking another 5,000 housing units. Portsmouth needs new houses like a hole in the head, but it is prepared to do something. As I am sure Ministers and others would say, people living in urban

    1123
    areas do not want to see rural communities and the green belt that surrounds our cities built upon all over the place. However, there is a price to pay for urban areas such as Portsmouth, Southampton and Brighton playing their part in the south-east.
    The figures are hopelessly wrong. They take no account of the fact that in Portsmouth, for example, there are probably nearly 2,000 empty properties. There are probably 10,000 properties that are under-occupied. Many of them are council-owned properties.
    Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need to protect the countryside. Does he agree that it is fundamental that we allow some development in rural areas? Through village appraisals and blueprints, local communities often say that they want some housing or economic development because they will suffer just as much as urban areas unless they get it.
    Mr. Hancock: Absolutely. I have spoken at numerous village meetings where the village community—not the people who came in for second homes and picturesque thatched cottages—has said that. What about the youngsters, who were born and grew up in the village and who want to continue to live there? Where do they go in the New Forest? Where can they find housing? Do they have to go to Southampton or Bournemouth to live in multi-occupation housing? Do they have to go to Basingstoke? It is the same throughout the south-east. There are obvious needs in the rural community and, once again, a balance must be found.
    I hope that the Minister who replies will say that greater help will be given to solve the problem of rundown urban areas, wherever they are. The general improvement areas and housing action areas of the late 1960s and early 1970s have done their job. The 25-year extra life that a general improvement area was supposed to give to an old property has now come to an end in most instances, and most of the properties concerned are more than 100 years old. They now need further refurbishment. We need a return to grants to improve them. Local authorities need help to be able to offer proper and viable alternatives to the elderly who under-occupy. There are some ludicrous examples where one person is occupying a three-bedroom council house with a garden at the front and at the back. At the same time, there are 4,500 and sometimes nearly 5,000 families waiting to be rehoused in many cities. In some instances the figures may be even higher. We need to arrive at policies that offer solutions that do not involve building new housing. In other words, we do not have to build new houses.
    A number of things could and should have been done between 1979 and 1997. We know that no one in this place will own up for what did not happen. The Minister rightly applauded the achievements of the last Secretary of State in the Conservative Government with responsibilities in this area, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who tried to halt the development of out-of-town shopping. Unfortunately that finger appeared in the dyke a little too late in the day when most of the damage had been done. Most of the stores have been built, with their acres of car parks. That cannot be reversed.
    Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): My hon. Friend is right when he says that the then Secretary of
    1124
    State's intervention came late in the day. It is a fact that the sword of Damocles still hangs over some communities. There is a proposed supermarket site outside Frome. Permission for the development was given in the dying days of the Conservative Government, overriding the local authority's decision. We still do not know whether that development will take place. If it does, it will be an Asda.
    Mr. Hancock: Once again my hon. Friend has made his point. He has given another example of how the innocence of the countryside will be disturbed for the want of money. When the Conservatives were in Government they created a developers' paradise. Land banks were established in most of the counties of the south-east and the area surrounding the M25 corridor, and many of them still exist.
    I was slightly disturbed by the Minister's answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), when he said that building up to 10,000 units was what developers might have wanted. Some of the developers who bought land banks in Hampshire, West Sussex and probably in Kent and East Sussex wanted to be involved in that very sort of development. They want to create Micheldevers outside Winchester. However, that is the very thing that most people in the south-east find impossible to handle. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position. I understand that there are exceptions but I would not like developers once again to misinterpret the Minister's response as suggesting that such development will be an acceptable norm in future. If that is the correct interpretation, once again we shall have a Government whose record on development will be tarnished by the time that they leave office.
    The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, asked about the Liberal Democrats' plan. We have a plan. Unlike Baldrick's, it is not a cunning plan. Indeed, it is a straightforward, open plan.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: A short plan?
    Mr. Hancock: It is not a short plan. I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. It is a straightforward plan that could be adopted by the House and the Government very quickly.
    We could establish a greenfield development tax to encourage more efficient use of brownfield land and existing properties. We cannot proceed in any other way. There is not a cat-in-hell's chance of achieving the Government's targets otherwise. We would set up regionality to reflect the relative scarcity of greenfield land in each region and regionalise priorities within them. With the vagueness of the present system, a local authority will turn down permission and the Government will grant it, and that will continue.
    We would devolve regional responsibility for housing to regions. We would ensure that regions had planning conferences and housing conferences that led to planned strategies. As for Portsmouth, I hope that the region would not be the south-east as a whole but a smaller one. We would simplify regeneration funds into one regeneration fund instead of the numerous sources that now exist.
    We would free local government to be more innovative by allowing it greater freedom to borrow and to introduce local income tax—another tax, but it would specifically

    1125
    benefit people in that area. People in many parts of the country are disappointed at the way in which their tax is spent. A regional local income tax that targeted issues where people live would be far better received than some of the tax rises that they have had to pay since 1 April.
    We would give people better control of local politicians via proportional representation and referendums, allowing people to have more say and to reflect more on what was happening. We would give special encouragement to local government development in areas where it has been lagging, such as the north-east and elsewhere.
    We would do something about unemployment. The Minister has quoted regional figures. I read with interest the latest published figures on unemployment: it has come down to a record low of just over 1 million; about 1,070,000 are claiming benefit. However, 1.7 million people are registered unemployed, but not claiming benefit. Therefore, nearly 3 million people are still registered unemployed. Whatever the reason, a significant number of people are still registered unemployed. Members may frown at that. The Government supplied those figures. For the first time, they were published on the same day. It was interesting to draw a comparison.
    In opposition, the Labour party accused the Tory Government of massaging the unemployment figures. The figures that I have just exposed show that the massaging continues. We ignore them at our peril. We still have major problems of unemployment. We have to give help to regions and to large cities where unemployment still figures high on the agenda of the poor in our community.
    I hope that, when Members vote tonight, they will think seriously. I would have loved it if the Government had made another mistake and hon. Members were able to vote on our amendment. I am sure that many Labour Members would have found it hard not to support it.
    The Conservative motion starts to redress the situation. It fires a great warning shot. I hope that the Government will take it seriously. However, when people reflect on the debate, most of them will think that it was more about educating Archie than bringing to the attention of the nation the Tories' mistakes while in government, and the way in which they allowed developers to rape the countryside.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I remind the House that many Members wish to speak, so shorter speeches will be appreciated?
    8.42 pm
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am also disappointed that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) did not speak, but for the reason that it would have been impossible for him to make a worse speech, at least on the north of England and its cities, than the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), to whom I pay the following compliment. I will ensure that his speech is read widely in my constituency because it will show the absolute contempt that the one-region Tory party has for the north of England.
    Rightly, there is still anger in my constituency towards the people who have failed to apologise for the damage that they caused constituencies and cities such as mine
    1126
    and those of many other Labour Members. The Tory party will regret that, not so much at council elections, but at constituency elections, when the party—which does not exist in the city of Manchester—will cease to be relevant to ordinary people's needs.
    Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will, provided that the hon. Gentleman promises to be brief.
    Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman would do himself more credit and do more justice to his argument if he gave credit where it is due: to the redevelopment in the centre of Manchester and in Salford Quays, which was achieved under a Conservative Government. Much was done in Manchester under the last Conservative Government. He should admit it.
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman was away from Manchester for some time during that era. The shame is that he does not come round with me. I invite the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells to do so. If he wants to know what really happens in a northern city, he should come with me to my constituency and see, for example, east Manchester, which the present Government are doing something about. House prices in the private sector have tumbled there. My constituents come to me because they have paid perhaps £28,000 or £30,000. I accept that that is not a lot by the standards of the millionaires on the Conservative Benches, but it is a lot for working people in the north of England. They have seen house prices plummet to £4,000, £3,000 or, effectively, nothing.
    The combination of unemployment and poverty hits people's health, so that people die younger in my constituency—a result of the previous Government's policies. In parts of my constituency, it will take a generation for us to get rid of the legacy of crime. On top of that, people's life chances were blighted by the previous Government. Not once have we heard an apology from Conservative Members, but it is about time that they accepted the blame that attaches to them because of the previous Government—and that attaches to them even now when they fail to understand the real problems, and the real scale of the problems, in constituencies such as mine and across the north of England.
    Some action was taken by the previous Government. The right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—the then Deputy Prime Minister—recognised the scale of the problems, and it is right and proper to say that parts of Manchester, such as Hulme, were redeveloped under the previous Government. However, that redevelopment was no compensation for the damage done by the recklessness of that Government in the 1980s and early 1990s, and which will literally blight my community for many years to come.
    I pay tribute to the Government for their attempt systematically to promote regeneration. East Manchester, for example, has obtained a £75 million package, and that money is making and will make a real difference to and significant inroads into the problems that we inherited. Moreover, the Government are not treating regeneration as a simple issue, but are considering it as part of an overall social and economic process.

    1127
    The Government are concentrating on the various issues affecting my constituents, and education has become a major part of their drive. Ministers are also placing emphasis on joined-up thinking between the various Departments, tying health, for example, into regeneration. Ministers have implemented key initiatives—which the Opposition would end—such as the working families tax credit and the minimum wage, which are desperately important to people in the community that I serve. The new deal in Greater Manchester is already offering opportunity to young people, 120,000 of whom have gained sustainable employment because of the Government's action. Conservative Members would not have allowed those programmes to proceed, but would end them if they could. That is why Conservative Members are seen to be so irrelevant.
    When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that she will make the point that if Conservative — belong to a party with no credibility in northern cities—really want to have a debate and examine the north-south divide, they should talk a little, please, about the north of England. The hon. Member for Ashford barely mentioned it in his speech—his was a speech for his own constituents in the south, dictated largely by the preoccupations of the Conservative party, which is now down to its rock-bottom layers of support and desperately trying to appeal to those. The speech was irrelevant to my constituents.
    I should like to spend a few moments outlining what Labour Members expect from the Government. It is important that we have reinvestment in our urban communities, which are important not only for the cities themselves, but for the wider community. It is important that the Greater Manchester travel-to-work area and community has a strong city at its heart, so that it is not plagued with the sort of problems that we have seen. We have to deal with the issues of crime, poverty, ill health and poor education, which have blighted the lives and futures of my constituents. Such action is beginning to be taken.
    I hope that Ministers will also take on board some recommendations on necessary action. Perhaps we need more joined-up thinking in Government. One problem encountered by local planners in my constituency, which has both a single regeneration programme and a new deal programme, is the difficulty of tying the two together. One scheme is administered by the regional development agency, but the other by Government office of the north-west. We need a little more creative thinking to ensure that joined-up Government really does deliver the maximum bang for the bucks provided.
    Although I realise that it is a more difficult issue, it would help enormously if we could incorporate European funding structures into mainstream Government programmes, so that we are able to ensure maximum delivery on the Government's objectives. I ask my hon. Friends the Ministers seriously to address those issues.
    We should also recognise the Government's achievements. I hope that Ministers will recognise how important the minimum wage has been already and the importance of sending a signal that it will keep pace with changes in average earnings in society generally. In the
    1128
    coming weeks and months, Labour Members will be looking to the Government to send those signals. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that message back.
    Powerful signals could be given on the long-term future of Manchester and the region. The future of Daresbury has been mentioned. There is a battle between Oxford and the north-west of England for the siting of new investment and the decision lies at the highest level in the Government. They could send an important signal by recognising that when there is an equal case—or, on this occasion, a stronger case—for a northern location, it should be accepted, because we need to maintain the human capital and skills base in the north-west and throughout the north of England.
    I hope that my hon. Friends understand the disappointment that has sometimes been felt. We hear that the dome was recently granted an extra £60 million of funding. That contrasts with the difficulty that Manchester has had in persuading the Government to look kindly on investment and development in the Commonwealth games site. Those are important issues for Manchester.
    Mr. Soames: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to have the support of at least one Conservative Member from the south of England. It is an important issue, because with a one-nation Government we need investment in sporting, cultural and other facilities not just in London and the south-east, but throughout the country. Even at this stage, the Government could decide to make Manchester the home of athletics in this country. That would need investment in the Commonwealth games site, but it would leave a legacy for athletics throughout the United Kingdom that would not result from the proposed development in London, if that is to be the site of the 2005 world athletics championship.
    The strongest signal that the Government can give is to make it clear that they are determined never again to let the people of my constituency be crucified in the wanton and cavalier fashion that we saw during the 18 years of Conservative Government. Every time that I listen to my hon. Friends, that is the commitment that I hear. There will be no more Tories for Manchester, because what they did was wicked and it will take us a long time to overcome the problems that resulted from that wickedness.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. John Gummer: I had intended to draw together the issues on which there is agreement across the House, but that was before I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I was thrilled to hear his description of Liberal Democrat policy. We all know what their policy really is: they bang on the door, find out what the person wants to hear and tell them that. If the person next door wants to hear something different, they tell them that instead. Every Liberal Democrat local authority operates on that basis.
    There is no common Liberal Democrat policy on the issue—that was proved when the hon. Gentleman tried to explain what they would do. They want a lot of regions and referendums, as well as two new taxes. I wonder what would happen if people decided in a referendum that they did not want the new taxes. Would they then not have

    1129
    them? The hon. Gentleman said that the regions would not be too big, but the localities would also have to have their say. It is the usual nonsense from the Liberal Democrats, desperate to appear that they have a policy when all that they want to do is be antagonistic—significantly so to the Conservative party and not quite so significantly so to the Labour party. Their policy is "A plague on both your houses", because they will not face the real tough issues.
    I congratulate the—
    Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Gummer: In a moment, because I want to get my congratulation out before it sticks in my throat. I congratulate the Minister on a range of measures that, I hope that he agrees, have continued the kind of policies that I tried to introduce. He wants to improve the quality and design of the homes that are built. I congratulate him on his recent announcement.
    It is a pity that the Department has no specialist advisers to bring fresh architectural design into its work. It is a pity that they are all political advisers and not specialist advisers. It is important for a Department that has not been marked for its design consciousness in the past to have new, bright and unusual ideas. That would happen if the Minister were to bring in people from outside. It would make up for the clearly mistaken views that were put forward by Professor Crow and others who take an old-fashioned view.
    It is not sensible to make party political comments about lack of density in building. We all know the reason for that. The planning establishment went on and on about how we should not have town planning and how we had to have low-density development. When I introduced proposals for higher densities, I was told that I was going back to Victorian times. Some Labour Members, then in opposition, echoed those planning mantras. The Minister will have significant support from the Opposition in seeking to explain to planners that quality and design matter more than density. They matter whether the development is in the north of England or the south of England. That is a crucial issue.
    The Minister has to understand why the debate was introduced. After the winding up of the urban development corporations, which quite properly had a period of time in which to do remarkable jobs in Manchester, Sheffield and many of the great northern cities, we need to consider what has replaced them. So far, it is difficult to see in the actions of the Leeds authority or the Sheffield authority, under its previous administration or its present administration, the verve, new ideas and excitement that was put into those cities by the UDCs. We have not seen it yet. I do not want to say that we will not see it, but I believe that the Minister has an important job to do in trying to find new ways of looking at urban regeneration, which is so important and which the UDCs in large measure began.
    In those circumstances, the Minister must understand why we feel that there is a real lack of enthusiasm for the regeneration that is necessary in our great northern cities. After all, when we talk about guilt, we should consider the guilt of Labour councils that destroyed great cities by pulling down buildings and building badly in their place,
    1130
    instead of providing the regeneration which all parties now agree ought to be the answer. There is a great deal of guilt around, but there is also a great deal of common view. I suggest, therefore, that we build on that common view and try to get a bit more oomph—if Hansard cannot spell oomph I shall do it for them—into what the Government are doing in the great cities of the north.
    The Government also have to realise, however, that large numbers of people live in the countryside. The Prime Minister's reception at the National Farmers Union was not wildly over the top. The delegates recognised that the right hon. Gentleman's speech lacked answers and demonstrated a failure of understanding. He suggested only that they should consult. We have had three years of crisis and we are now in the business of consultation. The Prime Minister got a raspberry for a very good reason: he presented no vision of any kind about the rural areas of Britain—so those in rural areas have begun to ask whether the Government have anything to say to them at all. If that conference was any guide, the answer is no. It is no good saying that the Government understand the rural areas. People in rural areas feel beleaguered and do not believe that the Government will try even to protect the countryside outside our cities.
    I am trying to be as helpful as possible. That is the truth. Just as the Government must show more commitment to regeneration in the great northern cities, so they must show a commitment, in which people can believe, to the protection of the countryside. It is no good the Minister telling me that 10,000 new houses in the green belt next door to Stevenage are part of his policy for protecting the countryside. That will not wash. It is no good him saying that the Government were unable to turn down the plan. They could have done so; they had the legal means to go back on their decision.
    What did the Government say when I raised the matter? Ministers all had pieces of paper telling them to say that I had allowed large amounts of the green belt to be used, so I looked up what I had allowed. I allowed no housing in the green belt. The major project was the extension of Manchester airport—it would be difficult to build an airport in the centre of Manchester. Who asked me to extend Manchester airport? It was the Labour Members of Parliament for Manchester. I also found that I had allowed a development to create jobs in Woking.
    The Minister must accept that the whole policy started badly with Stevenage. Then, instead of developing the centre of Newcastle, the Government wanted to build 2,000 homes on the edge of the city—against the advice of someone who is now one of their revered Ministers. He probably got the job because he was so effective at putting over that point.
    The Government went on to announce that they would put aside a large greenfield, greenbelt site in Birmingham for new building. It is no good telling us that they support open fields, they do not—what they do is not what they say. Until they do what they say, we cannot be expected to believe them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was accused of not making a speech today—although my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made an excellent speech. The accusation is hard to sustain when the Deputy Prime Minister is not in the Chamber for the debate. When the right hon.

    1131
    Gentleman gives a major speech it is to the Fabian Society, not to the House. He is not in the Chamber telling us what to do; he is doing that outside.
    The Minister should be careful when he makes criticisms. The real criticism is of the contempt in which the House is held by the Deputy Prime Minister and of his failure to announce in the House, to the House, major policy changes—making such announcements instead to his cronies in the Fabian Society.
    From time to time, I have fallen out with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—about Asda building in certain places—so I cannot be described as sycophantic. However, it is an odd House of Commons in which someone who has provided opportunities for keeping jobs and for creating jobs and wealth should be deemed unsuitable to comment on the environment, transport and the regions. The Minister should realise that no member of his ministerial team has ever created a job in his life—that is the problem with the Government. They do not realise that it is not only the northern towns which have no confidence in them—that is evident in the resignation of so eminent a man as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) —but that the same is true of the rural areas and of the conservationists. They do not have the confidence of the wealth creators of Britain, to whom they have not given the certainty that such people need.
    The only way to get people to redevelop city centres is to make it clear that they will not be granted approval for development plans outside cities. If the Government did their job properly, they would not hide behind legalistic matters and Professor Crow's document; they would say clearly, "Professor Crow is wrong. We will not allow 1.1 million houses to be built on the green belt—not because we want to suck up to voters in the south, but because if we do so, voters in the north will never have the regeneration that they need, and the regeneration needed in so many of our southern cities will not take place either."
    I think that the Minister's heart is in the right place—very often his mouth is too—but he has to put his Government's actions in the right context. The person who he has got to get at first is the Prime Minister. His answer to urban deprivation in Islington was not to improve education there, but to take his children to a school five boroughs away. I am not introducing private family matters into the debate—it is an example of "Don't improve it, go somewhere else." That is true of too many of Labour's answer to inner-city problems.
    I want the inner cities to be improved and I want action, not words. I want a Prime Minister who stays there and shows that his family will put up with the education that Labour's consistent control of Islington has destroyed. It is not just housing and the environment that will regenerate our cities; it is schools to which people will want to send their children. Most of the movement out of our cities has been by young families who have looked for places where their children can be better educated. If we get the schools right, we can do a great deal more about regeneration. If only this Prime Minister had led the way.
    9.6 pm
    Ms Hazel Blears: I am beginning to feel a slight sense of déjà vu. Just three months ago, we had a debate on virtually the same issues and, again, it was called by the Opposition. On that occasion, I accused the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of living on another planet, because he did not seem to be in touch with the real world. He seems to have vanished into thin air and I had hoped that the Opposition's new representatives would have learned something from that debate. Yet the contribution that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) almost seems to be an attempt to airbrush the Conservatives' role out of history and to whitewash the whole record of their time in government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) was right to remind people in the country and the House of the dreadful wickedness—wickedness was the right word to use—of the actions and policies of successive Tory Governments. They created many of the dreadful problems that this Labour Government is now having to address in many of our cities, not just in the north, but in all parts of Britain. I am amazed that Conservative Members can stand there with impunity and accept no responsibility whatever for the actions and policies that they introduced.
    Conservatives do not like to be reminded of the economic mismanagement that led to many of our problems. The failures and recessions decimated manufacturing industry and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in many cities and that led to the spiral of despair, dereliction and decline with which we are having to deal today.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way before she does herself an injury. If things are going so well, why did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) resign?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend will undertake a magnificent job on behalf of his constituents. In future, he will raise many of the issues about which we are concerned. If the hon. Gentleman finds it disturbing that Labour Members have passion and integrity about the issues on which they speak, I suggest that he remind his own colleagues of the depth and intensity that we feel about these issues. We represent our constituents and see on a day-to-day basis the effects of the Tory policies that damaged and decimated many of our areas.
    The massive rise in unemployment, particularly in my constituency, led to that spiral of decline. People had no jobs, no hope, no skills and no chance of a decent future. The problems will take many years to begin to turn around, not simply the two and a half years of the Labour Government.
    The Tories' response—then as now—was absolutely pathetic. They did not invest in people; they invested in bricks and mortar and prestige projects. They told us to move and to look for work elsewhere. They did not encourage regeneration by empowering local communities to do things for themselves. Instead, they had the cult of the individual and selfishness—everyone for himself and get on if we can. That is not my idea of rebuilding communities.

    1133
    If I am honest, I do not believe that the Opposition care about regeneration. I do not think that they have thought deeply about how to build capacity in local communities; how to involve local people in changing their neighbourhoods; how to make sure that youngsters have the skills to enable them to take the jobs that are on offer; how to give people the self-confidence to stand up to crime and disorder in their communities and how to make a difference. Theirs is a glib, superficial approach. The issues are difficult, long-term and structural, and complex approaches are required to make a difference.
    None of that matters to the Opposition. They have demonstrated an obsession with protecting the green belt and a last-minute, unconvincing conversion to revitalising cities as a way out of the corner that they have painted themselves into. As is usual with the Tories, that does not add up. It has already been said that they want to abolish the regional development agencies. How else are we to get the land assembly, infrastructure and inward investment that will bring jobs to many of our hard-pressed cities? They have no answer to that.
    The Tories want to abolish the minimum wage, which is helping 2,000 families in Salford, and the working families tax credit, which is benefiting 2,500 families in Salford by between £24 and £100 a week. They want to take that money away from those families. They oppose child benefit increases, and 10,000 children in Salford would not be lifted out of poverty if it were up to the Tories. Those are their policies.
    The Tories want to abolish the new deal. In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent. We have a new deal pilot project for the over-50s. A lady in my constituency has just got her first job for 15 years under that project. The Tories' policies would take away opportunities from many people that I represent.
    If we consider what the Labour Government have done in the past two and a half years, we see a dramatic contrast in my area alone. We have a single regeneration budget project in Seedley and Langworthy, which provides £25 million to help people to build their way out of decline and dereliction. A new deal for communities project is currently being built in Kersal and Charlestown. Again, local people are coming together and deciding what are their priorities for the city and what they want to happen.
    In our education action zone, we had a children's university this year. For the first time 700 children from the most deprived inner-city area went to Salford university and spent a week doing science, jazz, dance, percussion, engineering and a range of other subjects to which they would not otherwise have had access. At the end they graduated and got certificates, and their parents came to the university—people who would never normally cross the threshold of a university.
    Those long-term regeneration projects are crucial if we are to begin to turn the tide. That investment will not pay off straight away; it will take years. If only the previous Government had thought about some of the ways in which they could have invested in young people, we might not be in our present difficulties.
    We have a sure start project in Pendleton, which is investing £3,000 in every child born there over the next three years, giving them a decent start and opportunities.
    1134
    That is real regeneration: projects that last and are embedded in local communities; projects that local people own and which give them pride, self-respect and confidence. That is not easy, and it takes time. We cannot do it overnight. People have expectations. We have made a brilliant start, but there is a long way to go.
    I suggest to the Government a couple of things that they could do to help us to revitalise our cities further. We need to review the standard spending assessment formula. I know that we are having a review, but I feel strongly that inner-city areas lose grant because people are leaving those areas. The families that they leave behind often have more problems that the people who leave. Those who leave are the more able members of the community, while those who stay have a multiplicity of problems and still need help from social, housing and education services. We need to be much more flexible about the way in which the formula applies to cities.
    We lose money because people go from welfare to work. I am delighted that in Salford unemployment has gone down by 13.5 per cent. However, people in poor communities often get low-paid, casual, part-time, temporary jobs. They do not go from being on benefit into a job that pays £20,000 a year, with all that it entails. They still need local authority housing, education and social services to help them to cope. We have lost £4 million this year because we have been successful in getting people into work. We do not want to be penalised for that.
    We have to tackle crime if we are to get the most from our social exclusion initiatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said. I want to echo several other contributions by saying that if we are serious about regeneration, we have to create high-quality jobs.
    I must mention the vital Diamond synchrotron project at Daresbury. The case for locating the facility at Daresbury is very strong. It is already a world-class centre of synchrotron research expertise and has an unrivalled international scientific reputation. The site is in the right place; planning consent has already been granted; it is within 20 minutes of Manchester airport; it is adjacent to a new research development project that could create 7,000 new jobs; it is in an assisted area. A decision by the Government to invest in science and technology in the north-west would be a massive signal of confidence to the community and investors.
    The competing claim by Oxford does not meet the Government's priorities for investment and regeneration. If we are serious about developing centres of excellence in every part of Britain, we should grasp the opportunity. Let us make the Diamond project the jewel in the crown of the north-west. It is in our Labour heartland, and it is overwhelmingly the right thing to do.
    The motion describes the need to create one Britain. Two very different Britains are on offer today; we have heard about them both. The Tory Britain is of unemployment, poverty, run-down public services, division and dereliction, while the Labour Britain is of rising—and I hope full—employment, a decent income for hard-working families, education and health services of which we can be proud, and hope and opportunity. Faced with those two options, I know very well which the people of this country will choose. This Labour Government can and will deliver the kind of cities in which people want to live.
    9.16 pm
    Mr. David Curry: If you believe that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will believe anything.
    I assume that it is a matter of common sense that denying development in the south does nothing automatically to encourage it in the north. We must be careful not to make that rather silly arithmetical assumption. The north has its own needs which must be dealt with by policies designed to address them. We know what they are: the exodus from cities, whether to the immediate neighbourhood or beyond; surplus housing; dismal education performance, as the Office for Standards in Education reports in Leeds and Sheffield either have shown or are about to show; and problems of community safety which make people not want to live on estates. I shall address my remarks mainly to the subject of housing, so I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for remaining in his place.
    In the north-east, for example, there is an annual population decline of 1.4 per cent.—3,500 people a year are expected to leave—but household numbers are increasing due to the phenomenon experienced across the country. There are 9,400 local authority voids—3.2 per cent. —but, across all sectors and the range of tenure, there are 77,000 unfit houses. The real problem is the inexorable rise in the number of properties that are difficult to let: 14 per cent. in the local authority sector and 10 per cent. in the housing association sector.
    The north-east's annual clearance programme accounts for 1,400 properties a year, yet regional planning guidance provides for the building of 6,000 new houses a year. So, there will be a continuation of over-supply. It takes a lot of money to demolish properties—£16,000 a property under the Housing Corporation's scheme, "New Tools". There is already a dislocation of the planning process and real need on the ground.
    Let us look at Newcastle slightly more closely. Of 36,500 council properties, 1,600—4.3 per cent.—are voids. The problem is one of turnover: 8,000 properties a year see a change of tenant. How on earth do we build a stable neighbourhood with a 20 per cent. turnover? The tenancy structure shows a division between very old people and youngsters. There is a great hole in the middle of tenants between the ages of 30 and 45, who have families and, let us say, jobs, who might play an active part in the community.
    The reason for such a hole is obvious. One can buy a terraced house in a decent part of Newcastle for £30,000 or a semi-detached Barrett-type house on north Tyneside for less than £50,000. Why pay £40 a week rent when one can put that money into a mortgage?
    Let us consider —I see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) in his place. With a housing stock of 65,000 and the same problem of an ageing tenant population, the city calculates that in 10 to 15 years, up to one third of its tenants will have died or will need to move to different accommodation. There is no new generation of tenants that the city can identify coming along behind, which is one of the reasons why it is actively canvassing transfer options.
    Let us take Liverpool, one of the greatest of our northern cities—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is present. The council has 38,000 properties and other registered social landlords have roughly the same, but in the city there are 15,000
    1136
    too many properties, of all sorts of tenure. The local authority has embarked on a programme of mothballing or demolishing houses, simply because there is no use for the stock.
    I shall not to continue my recital of statistics. Instead, I shall suggest three areas in which Government action is needed, the first of which is stock transfer. That activity received great impetus from the ability to set up housing companies being established under legislation introduced by the previous Government; the Minister for Housing and Planning and I sat on Benches opposite to those upon we now sit when that legislation was passed. The projected programme is for 300,000 transfers, but that includes the whopping Birmingham transfer of about 90,000 units.
    There are decisions to be made. As the Minister knows, there is a problem with penalties on the early repayment of debt that are consequent on transfers being made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a firm view of the size of transfer permitted: we do not want transfers from one monopoly to another. It is the nature of the management that counts, not the ownership. There is a real danger of great cities being carved up into zones, each of which has a monopoly provider.
    I would prefer the division to be achieved in such a way that associations own properties in different parts of a city, so that tenants can compare the performance of different registered social landlords. In addition, we must encourage the development of mixed tenures within housing corporations, housing companies and housing associations, and encourage them to offer tenures across the full range, so as to achieve the sort of mixed development that we know is necessary.
    We need a new concept of social housing. We must get away from its present characterisation as residual housing. We are witnessing the death of the council house, but not the death of social housing. We need to find a new definition and a new perspective on social housing, so that it addresses the social problems that hon. Members have identified.
    The second issue I shall examine is that of VAT on home refurbishment and repair and on greenfield sites. Let me state clearly, so that there is no confusion, that I would be in favour of a uniform rate of VAT covering greenfield development and housing refurbishment and repair. I asked the Treasury how much that would cost. The reply was £670 million, but I do not believe a pound of it, for very good reasons.
    Let us make some assumptions. Let us say that 175,000 new houses are built; at about £80,000 each, that brings in £700 million at 5 per cent. VAT—£600 million if social housing is exempted. According to calculations carried out two years ago by Business Strategies Ltd., we find that such a change in VAT leads to more small firms registering for VAT, more VAT being collected from those who are registered, and higher levels of activity. There are fewer empty homes—the Minister was and remains a great fan of the empty homes initiative—with about 30,000 properties being brought back into use. Let us assume an end to work on listed buildings being categorised as "new" so as to avoid VAT. The overall result is additional VAT receipts of more than £100 million.
    If we use the English house condition survey—a little out of date, but the relative values still hold good—we find that the total declared private spending on

    1137
    improvement, repairs and maintenance is £20 billion, and public spending is £3 billion, giving £23 billion in spending across all sectors. That should yield £4 billion in VAT, but the actual yield is £1.78 billion. Either there is gargantuan evasion, or an enormous proportion of work is being done by people who are below the VAT threshold. I think the truth is probably a bit of both, but it is certain that the scale of evasion is immense.
    Even if no extra building work results from a reduction in VAT, which is an extremely pessimistic assumption, and if no evasion occurs, which is an extremely optimistic assumption, so the two assumptions balance each other out, and VAT is charged on all building works, we are talking about a VAT figure of about £1.35 billion in today's prices. That second calculation shows a fall of £400 million in Government VAT receipts.
    However, the measure would actually result in a net gain for the Treasury of between £300 million and £800 million. The Treasury reckons a loss only because it makes no allowance for any change in the rate of black work or lessening of evasions, or for whether small firms are registered for VAT and larger ones consistently charge for it. The Treasury makes no calculations in respect of whether customers would be happier to have proper builders and proper receipts than cowboys to whom they pay no VAT. We do not know whether private investors, contractors or regeneration agencies would carry out more property improvement and renovation. The chances are that they would, but the Treasury answer to every single one of these questions is no. I do not believe that.
    I suggest that there should be a pilot scheme in three or four major conurbations to see what would happen. The VAT on greenfield sites need not be charged for the purpose of the experiment. Let us see what is right.
    I do not expect the Minister to reply in this debate, but I shall make sure that Hansard has a clear record of the points that I have made, and I should like a letter setting out the figures, which are crucial to the Government's response to the Rogers report. The Treasury response, as always, has been calculated to give the least information, and has little credibility. The issue is extremely important.
    I mention education briefly. Education action zones are fine, but the problems exist in far too many schools. We are beginning to learn that putting strong heads into individual schools will do a great deal more than the constant multiplication of zones, which last only for a limited period and are spread almost across the political spectrum.
    Finally, the Government have a major decision to take. They must decide what their relationship will be with the regions and with local government in the regions—in other words, what political geometry they will use to address the issue.
    We all know that the regional assemblies have floated off into never-never-land. Either the Government believe in local decision-making, a regional agenda and democratic accountability, or they do not. We need to know what they plan. The Government promised these things.
    Ms Margaret Moran indicated dissent.
    Mr. Curry: It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head. Those were the Government's pledges when they came to power. The Government judge outputs, whereas
    1138
    they should perhaps judge outcomes. To give a little more confidence to local government, the Government should draw up a contract, find out what it can deliver, and be less prescriptive about the methods by which it does so and more concerned about the outcomes.
    We all have lessons to learn about the degree to which we have been prescriptive about how other democratic and representative institutions should work. We now have an opportunity to find out whether we can achieve real regeneration in the great cities of Britain, irrespective of where they lie. The problems of Plymouth are just as bad as the problems of Liverpool and Newcastle.
    There could not be a finer test of all of us than to give democracy a chance of achieving that. We should give it the means to do so and judge it by what it delivers. We could then all rest a little more easy on our rhetoric.
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Colin Burgon: I shall try to bring another northern perspective to the debate and to keep my contribution brief.
    The position adopted in the debate by the Conservatives is a simple one, as befits the sophistication of their current thinking. According to their stance, there are two Britains, with a north-south divide. We have, in their view of the world, a south that is booming, overheating and suffering from overdevelopment, and northern cities that are declining.
    I want to examine the contention that northern cities are declining. I am aware that my colleagues from cities such as Liverpool and Manchester have already pitched in, so I shall restrict my remarks to my home city of Leeds, the city in which I was born and raised, and one of whose eight constituencies I am proud to represent.
    At the last election, the Conservatives were effectively wiped out in northern cities. As a result, it seems that only sporadic and inaccurate information is received by the Conservatives about our northern cities, which exist somewhere on the fringes of their known world. Indeed, I am tempted to say that those on the Conservative Front Bench probably know more about Royston Vasey than they do about the great city of Leeds.
    As a Leeds person, I know that Leeds has had to respond to tremendous challenges as a result of the collapse of traditional industries such as clothing, in which my father and mother worked, and engineering. Leeds does have its problems. For example, the Leeds inner area, consisting of 10 local government wards and home to about 225,000 people, is among the top 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in England.
    We urgently need to improve skills and increase qualifications in the work force and among the unemployed, of whom 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively have no qualifications. We do have high levels of deprivation, low household income and high benefit dependency. However, it is wide of the mark to deduce from those figures that Leeds is a declining northern city. Like many others, it is a two-speed city.
    The way in which Leeds has adjusted to the decline of its traditional industries is a great story. The facts refute the idea that Leeds is a declining northern city. Overall, Leeds has performed strongly in creating jobs. In the 1990s, employment increased by 12 per cent., which means more than 36,000 extra jobs; financial and business services

    1139
    employment grew by 36 per cent; and manufacturing output also increased by 36 per cent. A projection based on a Cambridge Econometrics model suggests that employment in Leeds will increase by 11 per cent.—above the national average—between 2000 and 2010.
    The Yorkshire and Humberside regional economic strategies document stated:
    "Leeds is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe in terms of employment, fuelled mainly by the growth in the financial and professional services … Leeds is one of Europe's most successful job generating cities."
    If those on the Conservative Front Bench do not believe the figures, I urge them to visit Leeds.
    Last summer, Conservative Members had an away day—or a "bonding session"—at a five-star hotel in Leeds. It is a pity that they did not catch a bus to the city centre and see what a vibrant, lively city Leeds is. They should have examined the regeneration of the riverside area, where people are repopulating the city centre. They should have visited the shopping areas, such as the Victoria quarter. For sport and culture, they should have nipped to Elland road to watch Leeds United, a rising power in the soccer world.
    If a bus journey is not to Conservative Members' liking—they probably would not recognise a bus—they could have caught a train and arrived at Leeds City station, which is undergoing £165 million of improvements to its infrastructure. It will be one of the busiest railway stations in England. If they wanted to fly in, they could have witnessed a similar rate of development at Leeds-Bradford airport. I hope that Conservative Members will reconsider before they write off northern cities such as Leeds simply to advance a poorly thought-out political argument.
    There is a complex pattern of economic and social performance across England. Any attempt to simplify that into a north-south divide is a generalisation, which masks the great variations within regions. Poor economic and social conditions are not confined to one part of the country. Five of the 10 most deprived local authority areas in England are in London.
    I look forward to hearing the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman admit, when he sums up, that their motion is flawed, that Conservative Members have misrepresented our great northern cities and that he acknowledges Leeds as an energetic, creative and confident city. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is writing that down because I shall be listening carefully to his response. Writing off our northern cities is offensive and patronising.
    I can reveal that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is not in his place because my speech was leaked to the Conservative party. He used to have an office bang in the middle of Leeds. He knows that everything I say is true and therefore he could not come to the Dispatch Box to refute my arguments.
    9.33 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I endorse what the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) said about Leeds, which, like Manchester, is a great, exciting city. The interpretation he placed on my hon. Friends' speeches showed clearly that he had not listened to them, because none of them said anything offensive or patronising about Leeds.
    1140
    Two jolly things have happened today. First, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) bitterly criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for saying nothing about the north of England, and then made a 15-minute speech exclusively about the north in which he omitted to mention the south. Secondly, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made a passionate speech about her constituency. We are all here to talk about what we know and what we can contribute to the debate.
    I welcome the Minister back after his absence. I want to raise a matter that he and I have debated previously, and which relates to West Sussex. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). How can the Government seriously pretend to care about the countryside when they allow the planning outrages that are currently in the pipeline?
    How can it be sensible to build in Hampshire and Sussex, when large tracts of land in Portsmouth and Southampton, not to mention Bradford and Liverpool, could well absorb the housing? What does that say about joined-up government? Even if the Government dump the wretched Crow report, as I hope and pray they will, they have made unauthorised changes to West Sussex, which means that one of the most beautiful and rural counties in Britain will never be the same again.
    The Minister is a genial chap and realises that none of this is personal, but I want him to know about the real contempt and anger felt in West Sussex at the behaviour of the Government over the present planning issue. The campaign has been brilliantly reflected by two energetic local newspapers in West Sussex—the Mid Sussex Times and the West Sussex Gazette—whose letter pages every week are full of correspondence from people who are outraged at the way in which the Government have behaved towards West Sussex.
    All parties in Sussex agreed a structure plan, which was approved by one of Her Majesty's inspectors in May 1997. It was a proper, well-thought-out and careful plan, which had been fully consulted on. All the parish and district councils and the relevant bodies had come together to agree it, but the Deputy Prime Minister overturned it in an outrageous decision in December 1997. In addition to the 37,800 houses agreed, he imposed an additional 13,000 houses.
    A new town will probably have to be planted in the green fields near Horsham; the Sussex coastal communities will have their last remaining gaps plundered; and the landscape in central and Mid-Sussex will come to resemble that of New Jersey unless we are careful. Many villagers are terrified at the prospect of what will happen to that beautiful and romantic scenery, quite unnecessarily.
    I urge the Minister to understand that the Government's proposals seem to brush aside the terrible problem of congestion and pressure on our services and infrastructure. The ultimate effect of what the Government propose—this is the stupidity of the Labour proposals—will be the choking of economic growth, which will prevent our part of the world from achieving its true economic status.
    Of course, there has to be development. I sympathise with the Government in that they have to reach agreement on sensible proposals, but what is proposed in Sussex is mad. As the Minister knows, the truth is that the infrastructure in Mid-Sussex in particular and West

    1141
    Sussex in general cannot cope. If many more houses are built, we will run out of water and the roads are inadequate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that there were not enough sewers in his constituency. I cannot report on the condition of the sewers in West Sussex, but I am sure that it is deplorable and deserving of much Labour investment. On a previous occasion, I described the number of cars in West Sussex. We are facing a "Carmageddon". There are not enough schools, roads or hospital facilities but, in that chaos, the Labour party intends to build another 50,000 new houses.
    Will the Minister explain to my constituents how he can square that planning vandalism with the principles of sustainable development to which the Government signed up with such bally-hoo at Rio and Kyoto? What flows from the Government's obligations to sustainable development? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, 10,000 new houses are to be built on a greenfield site between Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead, which is very caring. There are to be 90,000 new homes in Devon.
    How can it make sense to build 2,500 new houses on a greenfield site outside Newcastle when there are 4,000 empty homes in the city? The north-south divide is greater than ever and it is driven and fuelled by an obdurate and ignorant Government. Surrey residents have an average household income 71 per cent. higher than that of people who live in Tyne and Wear—that cannot be right.
    I conclude merely by asking how the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the people of Britain that the Government care about the countryside when they insist on such rural vandalism.
    9.39 pm
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been a good if short debate. It has been a shorter debate than it need have been for two reasons. First, there was the Home Secretary's crass incompetence in not tabling the right amendment in the previous debate. Secondly, the Minister for Housing and Planning spoke for more than half an hour and spent nearly one third of that time on a bunch of unjustified and ill-informed slurs on my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), which simply underlined the fact that he had nothing new to say on the key issues. The rest of his speech was the sort of vacuous posturing that we have all come to expect from him.
    The Minister tried to deny that there is a north-south divide, or that there is migration on a serious and growing scale from north to south. However, if he was right about that—even on a random basis, that must occur occasionally—why is he proposing to build 1.1 million, or even 670,000, new homes in the south-east? They are plainly not needed, so why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked, is he dithering about disowning the ghastly Crow report?
    The hon. Gentleman talked about the north-south divide as if it did not exist. Had he read his own urban task force report, he would have seen that it highlighted the disproportionate level of demand between north and south. There is ample evidence of the different earnings and incomes of residents in different parts. For example, Surrey residents have an average household income that is 71 per cent. higher than that of Tyne and Wear. Has he
    1142
    read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report, conducted by the new policy institute, which concluded that the gap between the richest and poorest in Britain widened in the first year of the Labour Government, with 1 million more people earning less than two fifths of the national average income? Will he please spare us his lectures about Disraeli?
    The Minister also said—I made a note of it because it struck me as such an amazing claim by a Minister in his Department—that the Government were building a successful and united country. Leaving aside the vandalism of devolution, the hon. Gentleman's policies simply do not pass the "Kilfoyle" test. They have not passed muster even with one of his valued former Front-Bench colleagues.
    It is rich for the Minister to lecture the rest of us about the green belt, particularly in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Only last April, the hon. Gentleman said:
    "in certain cases where it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green-belt boundaries."—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 531.]
    What kind of message does that send to planners, local authorities and the population of areas such as the south-east? Does he realise that brownfield development is falling, not rising, under this Government, and that the latest figures show that only 52 per cent. of dwellings were built on brownfield sites in the previous year? In reality, the Government are not even achieving their own brownfield development target.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was the usual protracted Liberal Democrat whinge. It is some indication of the importance that the Liberal Democrats attach to the issue, particularly in relation to the south-east, that they have found about the only Member of their parliamentary party who is not a Front-Bench spokesman to come and speak on their behalf. It is something of a rarity to find a Liberal Democrat who does not have a Front-Bench title.
    The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) abused us for ignoring the north and its interests, when nothing could be further from the truth. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nailed that particular inaccuracy.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who has an honourable record in planning and environmental matters and always speaks with great authority in the House, pointed out that the Liberals always ask for more government and more interference. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who was a challenge to Hansard if nothing else, talked about rebuilding communities, but does not she realise that traditionally Labour-supporting communities feel abandoned by the Government? It is no good her talking blithely about what she called Labour heartlands as some are not Labour heartlands any more, and some will cease to be so in future if the Government do not wake up to the problems described in the motion.
    Mr. Don Foster: Would the hon. Gentleman describe this part of his speech as a whinge?
    Mr. Waterson: It is merely a recital of self-evident facts.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious point, as democracy matters in our cities—there

    1143
    should be a political challenge—but can he tell me why the Conservative party no longer fights local elections in the worst-affected parts of my constituency?
    Mr. Waterson: As shadow Local Government Minister, I must do something about that.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon spoke with authority about housing, local government and regional planning guidance, which has lost the plot. [Interruption.] It calls for more homes where they clearly are not needed. He adopted an imaginative approach to the financial aspects of the motion, which the Minister will accept raised interesting thoughts on which he will want to reflect.
    The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) described himself as a Leeds person and purported to lecture us—and, in particular, me—about the value of Leeds. I was born in Leeds, brought up in Leeds and educated in Leeds until I went to university, so he cannot tell me anything about Leeds that I do not already know. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We cannot have so much noise.
    Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) joined the general agreement that Leeds is splendid, but made an extremely eloquent case for Sussex and other parts of the south-east. I share his view. The Minister tried to pooh-pooh the genuine concern in the south-east about the Crow report, but where are the roads, the rail links, the schools, the hospitals and the natural resources such as water to meet the target of 1.1 million—or even 600,000 or 700,000—new homes? [HON. MEMBERS: "The sewers?"] Indeed, where are the sewers?
    We are seeing the opposite of joined-up government. The Government are apparently paralysed in the face of a growing north-south divide and growing migration from north to south—so much so that they could not even carry their former Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), with them. The Crow report puts more than 430 sq km of rural land—an area larger than the Isle of Wight—under threat of urban development.
    We need not come to the House to hear about Government policy; we need only read what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say to the Fabian Society. I am afraid that my membership has lapsed so I was unable to listen to his speech, but he clearly wants to become a hero by saying, "We don't want to go along with that wicked Crow report, which talks about 1.1 million new homes. We'll go for more than the Serplan figure, but less than 1.1 million." In other words, the Government intend to use the Crow report as a stalking horse for a much larger figure than Serplan had in mind.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford set out clearly our policies to give more power to local communities so that local decisions can be made on local issues by local people. In contrast, the Government regularly duck the big issues and tend to kick matters such as their own brownfield target, the Rogers report, planning guidance, rural and urban White Papers and decisions on Crow and
    1144
    other serious issues into the long grass. Under this Government, the long grass is the only grass that is safe. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
    9.50 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The House always has lively debates on this subject, and tonight has been no exception. I thank my hon. Friends, in particular, for their contributions. As for the Conservatives, they may have a new shadow spokesperson, but it is still the same old story.
    We have debated the issue on a number of occasions. Labour Members are always happy to do so, because it is important, and because, each time we discuss it, the Tories' dismal record, and their inability to present any credible policies for the future, are repeatedly exposed. What has been highlighted again today is their failure—especially that of their Front Benchers—to grasp the complexity of the problems, or to come up with any new or workable measures to deal with those problems.
    The Tories claim that they care about the issue but, for most of the debate, their Benches were denuded. Only a handful stayed the course to debate this important matter, including the new shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), I was struck not only by the lack of attention paid to northern cities by the hon. Member for Ashford in his unfortunate opening speech—I read in "Vacher's Parliamentary Companion" that he used to be a speech writer for the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), which may explain a lot—but by the terms in which the Opposition cast their motion, which is entitled "Northern Cities and Southern Green Fields". It is the old stereotype, and, like all stereotypes, it is a gross and inaccurate over-simplification. For their own political purposes, the Opposition choose to fuel the notion of a north-south divide—grimy cities in the north, and green fields in the south. As a northern woman, I can tell them that we in the north have our green fields too, and we want to keep them.
    Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
    Ms Hughes: I would love to take an intervention, but I am afraid that I have no time.
    The wording of the motion obscures the fact that the real issues, both rural and urban, affect regions in both the north and the south of England. The quality of speeches from those on the Front Benches—the shallow, ill-informed rhetoric that we heard from the Opposition, and the detailed analysis of Government policy that we heard from my colleagues—could not have shown the difference in approach more starkly. [Interruption.] I can say that because it is true, as anyone who sat through the debate will know. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House again. There is far too much noise; we must be able to hear the Minister.
    Ms Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central, for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) for redressing the balance.

    1145
    Given the rather spiteful response of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), they must have hit a raw nerve for him to be drawn to such an extent. They reminded us of the damage done to their communities by the previous Government, and the fact that people in the north—like people everywhere else—want a decent life. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) clearly finds that terribly funny, but those people want a decent life and a good environment. They want their green fields too.
    Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
    Ms Hughes: I am sorry; I would love to, but I have only 10 minutes.
    All my hon. Friends who spoke described ways in which the Government could continue to do more. We are considering all the issues that they raised in the urban White Paper. We need to keep and to continue to attract companies in the north, as well as the south, by all means possible—for instance, by providing facilities such as those at Daresbury.
    The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was the only Conservative Member to talk about cities. He rightly mentioned the importance of housing and education to regeneration, and made several suggestions. Some of them are discussed in the report on popular housing, some we are actively considering as we develop our White Papers, and some will —are already involving—discussions with other Departments, including the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman's comments were very helpful.
    In relation to rural areas—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman may be done for now. As for rural areas, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) raised matters relating to the areas that they represent. I shall make a point about Stevenage that was not raised by any Opposition Members, and that is that the proposals will increase the green belt in Hertfordshire by nearly 5,000 hectares. The decisions are difficult, but we must take a balanced view. That approach is certainly resulting in an increase in green-belt land.
    The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made some sensible comments on design and density, with which I can agree. I do not accept for a moment his contention that the Government have done little, or are perceived to have done little, in dealing with rural problems. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, every year for the last decade of the Conservative Administration, there was a net loss of green belt. By contrast, since May 1997, there has been a gain of almost 30,000 hectares.
    I do not have the time to detail all the occasions when the Conservative Government directed southern counties to increase their housing numbers because they failed to plan for social need. However, that is precisely what has happened in West Sussex.
    We have yet to see whether the arrival of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on the Opposition Front Bench will change the Opposition's disastrous stance on these matters. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ditch the common-sense revolution for the nonsense that it is. Perhaps he will search for something else for the Tories to latch on to. If he does, he will face an insurmountable difficulty, and that is the Conservative
    1146
    party's complete lack of credibility. It is the party that tried to create two Britains. It concreted over the countryside and abandoned any attempt to address the needs of the regions. Its record in the past is so dismal and its policies for the future are so bankrupt that nobody believes that its about-face from free market economics—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the debate has nearly come to a conclusion, but I will not tolerate hon. Members shouting across the Chamber.
    Ms Hughes: Conservative Members do not like what they are hearing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is their only response.
    The Conservative party lacks credibility because nobody believes that its about-face from free-market economics to social and economic intervention is anything other than cynical opportunism. That just about sums up the contribution of the Conservative party to any serious analysis of, and discussion on, the serious and diverse problems facing people in our different regions. The Conservative party is opportunist, bankrupt and dismal.
    What are the Opposition's contributions and what are their big ideas in addressing the problems that have been raised during the debate? They would batten down the hatches in the south-east and strangle the potential for economic growth in the eastern and southern regions, thereby holding back the UK economy as a whole and sending business off to Europe. They would dismantle the planning system and stop housing development, irrespective of the human consequences. They would abolish the regional development agencies, the very agencies that were set up to develop differentiated regional strategies to tackle inequalities between and within regions.
    In stark contrast to that rag-bag of ill-conceived measures, the Government have a long-term, co-ordinated and joined-up strategy. It addresses, through the new deal and the minimum wage, the needs of individuals wherever they live. It addresses the needs of the disadvantaged areas, wherever they are. It tackles regional inequalities through the RDAs and through reform of planning—
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 321.

    Division No. 60]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Boswell, Tim

    Allan, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Amess, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Brake, Tom

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Ballard, Jackie

    Breed, Colin

    Beggs, Roy

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Burnett, John

    Bercow, John

    Burns, Simon

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Butterfill, John

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cash, William

    Body, Sir Richard

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    1147

    Chope, Christopher

    Madel, Sir David

    Clappison, James

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Collins, Tim

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Colvin, Michael

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Moore, Michael

    Cotter, Brian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Cran, James

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Norman, Archie

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Page, Richard

    Day, Stephen

    Paice, James

    Duncan, Alan

    Paterson, Owen

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Pickles, Eric

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Faber, David

    Prior, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Randall, John

    Fallen, Michael

    Rendel, David

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Robathan, Andrew

    Flight, Howard

    Robertson, Laurence

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ruffley, David

    Fraser, Christopher

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gale, Roger

    Sanders, Adrian

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gibb, Nick

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gill, Christopher

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

    Green, Damian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Greenway, John

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Grieve, Dominic

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hammond, Philip

    Steen, Anthony

    Hancock, Mike

    Steen, Anthony

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Streeter, Gary

    Harvey, Nick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hayes, John

    Syms, Robert

    Heald, Oliver

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Horam, John

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Townend, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tredinnick, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Trend, Michael

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Tyler, Paul

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Viggers, Peter

    Keetch, Paul

    Walter, Robert

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Wardle, Charles

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Webb, Steve

    Lansley, Andrew

    Wells, Bowen

    Leigh, Edward

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Letwin, Oliver

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Lidington, David

    Wilkinson, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Willetts, David

    Livsey, Richard

    Willis, Phil

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Wilshire, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Loughton, Tim

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    1148

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Darvill, Keith

    Ainger, Nick

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davidson, Ian

    Alexander, Douglas

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Allen, Graham

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

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Denham, John

    Austin, John

    Dismore, Andrew

    Banks, Tony

    Dobbin, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Doran, Frank

    Barron, Kevin

    Dowd, Jim

    Battle, John

    Drew, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Beard, Nigel

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Efford, Clive

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Etherington, Bill

    Benton, Joe

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fisher, Mark

    Berry, Roger

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Best, Harold

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Blackman, Liz

    Flint, Caroline

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blizzard, Bob

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Galloway, George

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gardiner, Barry

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Browne, Desmond

    Gerrard, Neil

    Burden, Richard

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Burgon, Colin

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Cann, Jamie

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Chaytor, David

    Grogan, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Gunnell, John

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clelland, David

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann

    Heppell, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cohen, Harry

    Hill, Keith

    Coleman, Iain

    Hinchliffe, David

    Colman, Tony

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoey, Kate

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Home Robertson, John

    Corston, Jean

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil

    Cox, Tom

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Crausby, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Hurst, Alan

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hutton, John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Illsley, Eric

    1149

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jamieson, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Jenkins, Brian

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pond, Chris

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pope, Greg

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kemp, Fraser

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Khabra, Piara S

    Purchase, Ken

    Kidney, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Quinn, Lawrie

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rammell, Bill

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Rapson, Syd

    Laxton, Bob

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lepper, David

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Levitt, Tom

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rooney, Terry

    Linton, Martin

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Love, Andrew

    Roy, Frank

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCabe, Steve

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Salter, Martin

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McDonnell, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sawford, Phil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McNulty, Tony

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    MacShane, Denis

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Singh, Marsha

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Maxton, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Snape, Peter

    Meale, Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Merron, Gillian

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Miller, Andrew

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morley, Elliot

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

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

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mudie, George

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Timms, Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Todd, Mark

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Touhig, Don

    O'Neill, Martin

    Trickett, Jon

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Truswell, Paul

    1150

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wills, Michael

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Wilson, Brian

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Winnick, David

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Wise, Audrey

    Tynan, Bill

    Wood, Mike

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Woolas, Phil

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Worthington, Tony

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wray, James

    Watts, David

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    White, Brian

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to create high-quality, desirable, safe places to live without eating up the countryside; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and believes the Government's inclusive and strategic approach to planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; recognises that this Government is planning for economic success and that there is an opportunity to use growth to create better and more sustainable communities and improve the quality of life; welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy; supports the Government's target of building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land; and welcomes the Government's determination to ensure that the whole country shares in the benefits of economic recovery.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 7th February, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on any Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to Social Security not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
      That the draft African Development Bank (Further Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.
      That the draft International Development Association (Twelfth Replenishment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.

      MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT GUARANTEE AGENCY
      That the draft Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Further Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.
      ECCLESIASTICAL LAW
      That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

      CINEMAS AND FILMS
      That the draft Films (Modification of the Definition of "British Film") Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.

    House of Commons Commission
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That Sir Peter Lloyd be discharged from the House of Commons Commission and Mr. Eric Forth be appointed a member of the Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    10.13 pm
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I should like to remind the House of the words of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), spoken in the Chamber on 20 January this year. During the debate on the Braithwaite report he openly and honestly described his lack of understanding of the House of Commons Commission. He also described his views on how members should be appointed to it. His desires have clearly not been met, because he has been nominated through the usual channels. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much background noise. The House must come to order. I also remind hon. Members that the terms of the motion are very narrow indeed.
    Mr. Miller: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst expressed concern about the process of appointment and proposed that a different process should be implemented. Clearly, it would be entirely wrong of me to speculate on what that process should be, as that would be outside the terms of the motion. However, if one looks at the duties that are undertaken by the House of Commons Commission as set out in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, it is clear that it has some extremely important and rigorous functions. It is quite proper that the House should consider his suitability for the position by way of a formal interview.
    It has been alleged in recent debates that the right hon. Gentleman was flying his own kite and acting out of control of his party Whips, but the prima facie evidence before the interview committee tonight is that that is not the case. Clearly, he would not have been nominated through the usual channels had he been acting outside the control of the Whips. So all the stories that we were told during that ridiculous all-nighter last week that the Whips were not in control of the situation must have been untrue.
    I return to the functions of the House of Commons Commission. It is responsible for important functions in the House, not only in providing important services to hon. Members and the staff, but in ensuring that we are open and accountable to citizens.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Those of us who know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) know full well that he is a vigorous defender of the rights of the House. That being so, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he is not fit to be on the House of Commons Commission?
    Mr. Miller: With the greatest of respect, I have not suggested that. I am just reminding the House that we are making an appointment to an extremely important body.
    Mr. Eric Forth indicated assent.
    Mr. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. Yet on 20 January 2000 he said:
    "However splendidly the Commission may work, I am not convinced—because I do not know enough about how it works—that that is in the forefront of its mind when it goes about the strategic planning that may or may not happen."—[Official Report, 20 January 2000; Vol.342, c.1079.]
    As he acknowledged, he clearly does not understand and has not read the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.
    Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my hon. Friend also consider that, as there are so few appointments to this august body that adjudicates over so many important issues for us Back Benchers, its members must be representative of a large majority of hon. Members—and that can hardly be said of the individual whom we are discussing this evening?
    Mr. Miller: I very much agree with the first point made by my hon. Friend—that the person should be representative of a wide range of Members. However, her second point will be tested by the interview process in which we are engaged. Given that the Commission—[Interruption.]
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Miller: Of course.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am a trifle perplexed by his use of the word "interview". In reference to these proceedings, is it customary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for someone conducting an interview to do so by making a lengthy and rather tedious speech? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not conducting an interview.
    Mr. Miller: Clearly, I must have been in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you would have rapidly stopped me. Perhaps the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has had a word with my Whips, who from time to time accuse me of being long-winded, boring and tedious.
    Hon. Members: Never.
    Charlotte Atkins: In case my hon. Friend was about to become tedious, he might care to reflect on the fact that there are about four times as many Opposition Members in the Chamber for this debate as there were for the previous one.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has been in good order, but if he responds to that intervention he will be out of order.
    Mr. Miller: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As for being long-winded and tedious, I must point out that this is the largest audience to which I have ever spoken in the House.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward).
    Ms Claire Ward (Watford): Does my hon. Friend agree that Members of the House who want to represent
    1154
    Back Benchers on such an important Committee should have taken part in a considerable amount of debate, and should have ensured that they knew much about the subjects on which they will represent Back Benchers? That would include ensuring that they knew what the Commission exists to do.
    Mr. Miller: That is precisely why I am making my speech. On his own admission, the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the task of the Commission is. There are plenty of Opposition Members who know precisely what it is, because they have read in detail the reports made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who speaks for the Commission. They have participated in debates such as the one that we held on the Braithwaite report on 20 January.
    My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are dealing with an important issue—
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Miller: I want to finish my point.
    We are discussing an important body, which deals not only with services to Members and with members of the House's staff, but with the public outside. People outside the House look on the quaint ways in which it works with some disdain. Indeed, it has sometimes been suggested that the practices engaged in by the right hon. Gentleman lead the public to have a certain disregard for the House.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).
    Mr. Hoyle: I assure my hon. Friend that it is not just the Whips who think that he is tiresome and boring. Will he take up a relevant point and tell us what benefits the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) could bring to that most august body, the Commission? That is most important. Hon. Members seem eager to condemn the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to explain the benefits as he continues his speech.
    Mr. Miller: I can think of a number of benefits that the right hon. Gentleman would bring—his wit, his humour and his snappy dressing, including his choice of ties. Whether they would benefit the House is another matter.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: The question of how representative the right hon. Gentleman might be has been raised. His title shows that he is a member of the Privy Council, so he is therefore among the minority in the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend consider that the right hon. Gentleman's membership of the Privy Council is the closest that he has ever got to being "PC" in his life?
    Mr. Miller: I see you move forward, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that I would be straying dangerously

    1155
    from the terms of the motion if I considered my hon. Friend's point. I shall resist the temptation to consider it now. I shall speak to him outside the Chamber.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we have so many interventions immediately after one another, there will be no flow to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    Mr. Miller: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber).
    Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Commission has important functions in respect of the employment of staff, it would be incredibly helpful if, before the end of the debate, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) let us know what experience he has of staff employment practices? Would he be prepared to undertake equal opportunities training in terms of selection and recruitment and what is his attitude to an important issue that concerns many Members: child care facilities for Members and the staff employed by the House?
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I would not want to pursue the right hon. Gentleman too far along that line, because the public record shows that his views are extremely clear.
    The functions of the Commission need to be considered with much care. As I said earlier, issues such as communication with the outside world are important. However, when we discussed the Braithwaite report on 20 January, there were interesting exchanges in which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he was out of his depth. Perhaps, in a year's time, after he has mugged up and read line by line the reports of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—the right hon. Gentleman laughs but he has to read them—and developed a fuller understanding of the role of the Commission, the House should take a different view.
    Innovations are important to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that child care is important as are the development of broadcasting, the development of Hansard on the web and the improvement of facilities for members of the public. I hope that I am not using an unparliamentary expression, but the signs are that the right hon. Gentleman is something of a luddite on such matters.
    Mr. Brian White: Those of us who were present for the Braithwaite report debate heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) argue passionately for elections to bodies such as the Commission. Given those comments, is it not strange that he should allow his name to go forward in this way?
    Mr. Miller: As I said earlier, I might stray out of the terms of the motion if I responded in too much detail to the alternative methods that could be pursued. However, it is on the public record that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the process of appointment on the nod—we are certainly not doing that tonight—is not an ideal mechanism. Appointments should be subject to detailed scrutiny.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Member of independent mind is needed? Does he further agree that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not only of independent mind but, unlike those on the green swathes opposite, he is not one of the Whips' apparatchiks? He will stand up for the rights of Parliament, and more importantly, he will stand up for nursing women employees of the House. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Miller: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has appointed the hon. Gentleman his campaign manager—and a powerful speech he made too. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, of course, because he said that his right hon. Friend would stand up for Back Benchers. The right hon. Gentleman might stand up for the totally independent Members who have views that are out of touch with those of the majority in the House.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Whips.
    Mr. Miller: I do not know about the Whips. I have not seen any sign from them that I should shut up or do anything else, and I am not looking their way in case I get the wrong guidance.
    The Commission should represent minority views, including those of minority parties. It is particularly important that the House take into account all the parties represented here.
    Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the cheering, the hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I referred not to minority views of the House, but to independent views.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I see that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his touch.
    Mr. Miller: I shall make my point to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) a little clearer. Minority parties must be properly represented by the Commission, and someone who is so independent-minded that he does not take into account the consensus that must be achieved to make the Commission work is inappropriate for this post.
    It is possible that I am entirely wrong about the right hon. Gentleman, because the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), may over time have given him advice and guidance. Perhaps what we perceive as the actions of a man of independent mind are in fact those of the independent mind of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. That puts paid to the observations of the hon. Member for Lichfield.
    Ms Joan Ryan: Does my hon. Friend agree that whether or not the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is of independent mind, it is extremely important that someone who seeks to sit on a Commission with such an important role in employment in the House make a full and firm commitment to legislation on employment terms and conditions, in particular the national minimum wage?
    Mr. Miller: I honestly do not know, off the top of my head, what is the right hon. Gentleman's view on the

    1157
    national minimum wage, other than that he traipsed through the Lobby to vote against it. However, I would stray slightly from the motion if I developed that point.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point about the issues that members of staff face from time to time when the day's programme of business is so severely disrupted that it causes them domestic disruption, particularly if they are low paid or have a family. That point needs to be considered carefully.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Miller: I shall give way in a moment.
    If the man of independent mind is independently causing that disruption, that is not a good reason for appointing him to the Commission.
    Spurious debates that are dragged out for the hell of it by the right hon. Gentleman are costing the taxpayer a ridiculous sum of money. I have been probing the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on the matter, although I must say that I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from him. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that was precisely his point at column 1079 on 20 January. So, we have a man who acknowledges that he does not understand the Commission's role and believes that taxpayers' interests should be taken into account, but who seems to be acting independently—or perhaps with the guidance of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, the Opposition Whip—in dragging out proceedings, which costs the House a lot of money.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: The right hon. Gentleman has very clear views on the issues of Europe. Bearing in mind that much of our employment legislation, such as that on the limit on working hours and parental leave, emanates from European directives, what assurances does my hon. Friend think the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be able to give the House on his willingness and ability to act within the spirit as well as the letter of that legislation?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) needs my help in recognising that that is a red herring.
    Mr. Miller: I almost beat you to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that I believed that my hon. Friend's intervention was outside the terms of the motion, although it was interesting speculation.
    Mr. Martin Salter: There has been much talk of independence of mind. It is a tribute to the independence of mind of Labour Members that they are prepared to defy their Whip's order.
    How does my hon. Friend square the House of Commons Commission's responsibility for the staff of the House and the fact that a number of our staff are from the Irish Republic with the description by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), a few days ago, of people from the Republic of Ireland as
    "aliens … from a … foreign country"?—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 899.]
    Is that an appropriate view?
    Mr. Miller: On my hon. Friend's first point, I perhaps ought to seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
    1158
    because I will not be threatened by anyone in the House over this debate—apart from your good self. I have not had a discussion on the matter with anyone currently sitting on the Treasury Bench.
    My hon. Friend's second point is important to my observations about the need for the Commission to be representative of all interest groups in the House. Of course, there are people who take somewhat eccentric views by comparison with their party's norm, and their views must be accommodated. Some hon. Members represent very small minority interests. One of my near constituency neighbours, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), is his own Chief Whip and party leader. His views must be accommodated, too. However, I am not sure, given the kind of behaviour to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) referred, that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is properly equipped to do the job.
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: I feel that I must spring to the defence of the right hon. Gentleman, given my previous experience of him representing me. In judging whether he might be a suitable candidate for the Commission, the House might find the following information useful. Between 1985 and 1992, I lived in Redditch, where the right hon. Gentleman was my elected Member of Parliament. In many ways, he was an ideal representative of the Conservative party: we never saw him; we never had a leaflet or letter from him.
    Mr. Miller: I fear that I shall have to pursue that point outside the Chamber, lest I suffer the wrath of the Deputy Speaker.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Miller: I give way to—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat the advice given earlier? This is not Question Time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to make some progress.
    Mr. Miller: Were it Question Time and were I a Front Bencher, I would be considerably better prepared than I am now.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I, too, should like to defend the reputation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We know that he believes strongly that the House passes business far too quickly, without adequate debate and sometimes late at night. I suggest that the motion should be allowed to pass only when the Government have agreed to a full day's debate on the subject.
    Mr. Miller: I do not think that I could keep the debate going for a full day. However, there is a serious underlying point: the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has himself raised the issue of the process of appointments, arguing that it is unsatisfactory. We are now trying to deal with his appointment, albeit in a muddled way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I accept that. Hon. Members from both

    1159
    sides are asking probing questions, yet there has been no formal interview, selection process or hustings for an extremely important function.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Miller: No, I must make a little progress and end my remarks shortly, because other right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
    I shall draw my remarks together by referring again to the debate on Braithwaite, in which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised some important issues, but acknowledged that he knew nothing about them. The Braithwaite report referred to the process of management within the House of Commons and made several important recommendations. It strikes me, not only that the Commission should be composed of right hon. and hon. Members who not only understand the sensitivities of all the parties and interest groups represented in the House, but that candidates for a position should be people who can bring a certain expertise to the complex and varied functions of the Commission.
    My concern is that the right hon. Gentleman did not know what the Commission does, so we do not know what expertise he can bring to it. We can read about what he has done and we have heard him make some interesting speeches in the past, but, at this time, the House has no knowledge as to whether or not he is an appropriate candidate for the Commission. I agree that the process in which we are engaged is unsatisfactory, but it is the best one we have.
    I should now draw my speech to a close because others want to speak. Irrespective of the outcome, I genuinely hope that tonight's important debate will stimulate discussion within the Commission about the process of future appointments—[Interruption.] I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire acknowledge that point.
    Mr. David Taylor: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks as to the suitability of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), will he refer to the terms of reference of the Commission, which include responsibility for the British-Irish interparliamentary body? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on 19 January, will my hon. Friend emphasise that when we discuss people from the Republic of Ireland we are talking not about
    "aliens coming from a strange foreign country"—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 899.]
    but about people with local connections? Given the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, is my hon. Friend convinced that the right hon. Gentleman is an appropriate person to have such a responsibility? In addition, given the Commission's demanding timetable of 13 meetings a year, does the right hon. Gentleman have the time and energy to spare from persistent filibustering to fulfil such an arduous schedule?
    Mr. Miller: I honestly do not know. I described earlier the qualities that I think the right hon. Gentleman has—his charm, his humour, his tie—[Interruption.] I do not
    1160
    think his waistcoat is that charming. Beyond that, all we know about the right hon. Gentleman is that, from time to time, he tends to frustrate many of us late in the evening. Perhaps I am doing the same to him now.
    As a result of this discussion, I want the Commission to consider whether we ought to review the process of appointment, and I want the House to determine, through this process of interview—which I am not allowed to call an interview—whether the right hon. Gentleman is suitable for that onerous task.
    10.46 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I want to focus the attention of the House on the fact that the motion is important, and that this is a House of Commons matter. It has nothing to do with the Whips or with party political advantage. A vacancy that exists on the Commission must be filled. That is crucial for the functioning of the House of Commons. We are therefore right to spend some time collectively considering the people who are nominated to fill such vacancies.
    The debate is good fun, but the subject is important. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made some good points. We must make sure that the matter remains a House of Commons matter and does not get into the hands of the usual channels and the Whips. I know; I have been there, and I know that there are better ways of dealing with it.
    The debate this evening has stimulated some important questions. As a result, it is possible that, in the context of Braithwaite, the Commission will reflect on a mechanism that gives hon. Members a chance sensitively to select people in whom they have confidence. If that does not happen, the Commission cannot do the work that it is charged to do.
    Let me clarify what the House of Commons Commission does and the responsibilities of the Commissioners. The Commission is a corporate body, set up, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. It has six members. The Chair is the Speaker. The Leader of the House is a member of the Commission by statute, and the Leader of the official Opposition has the power to nominate a third member of the Commission.
    There are three remaining positions. One of them is the one that we are discussing tonight. There is another vacancy, because the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has been promoted. It is important that we fill the vacancies quickly and do so in good order.
    Three Members are nominated by the House to serve on the Commission. It has two principal functions. Briefly stated, it has the duty to appoint all the members of staff in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. The number of staff, their remuneration and terms of service must be set down, considered and decided by the Commission.
    Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman not fear that, given the power of members of the Commission to appoint members of staff in the House, the right hon. Gentleman may discriminate by not wishing to favour anyone from the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is a matter for each hon. Member. I have views on the suitability of the right hon. Member

    1161
    for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but the decision is a matter for hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right to refer to the Braithwaite report, because the right hon. Gentleman made an important contribution to the debate on it. Anyone who is interested in determining his views through that report is entitled to do that.
    Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Commissioners receive training on their employment duties, employment law and good practice? We might want to bear the answer in mind when considering the suitability of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is a sensible question. We have no training, but we have access to the Board of Management, which comprises paid professionals, who are experts. If we believe that specific questions are not within our competence, we bring in consultants. The House of Commons Commission is responsible for providing appropriate terms and conditions for modern times. It is important that we set an example and get the best advice.
    Mr. John Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The narrow motion applies purely to the fitness of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to serve on the Commission. It does not cover the Commission's functions.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to refer to the Commission's functions because there is an interplay between that and the suitability of the candidate. However, I hope that he will not go into too much detail because the motion is narrowly drafted.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am not wasting time. I am trying to sketch briefly the role of a Commissioner because I want to develop my view on the qualities that are necessary to do the job properly. I cannot do that unless I explain some of the responsibilities.
    The Commission consists of six Commissioners. It is chaired by the Speaker and appointed for a Parliament.
    Mr. Frank Roy: As a fellow Scot, who is aware of the criticism that Scots are over-represented in the House, and even in the Cabinet, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the appointment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would exacerbate that?
    Mr. Kirkwood: If I followed that line, I would be ruled out of order.
    I am trying, with little success, to describe briefly the Commission's responsibilities. Commissioners work with the Board of Management.
    Mr. Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman takes a fatherly tone with the House. Perhaps he could explain exactly what we should expect from individuals who are appointed to the Commission.
    Mr. Kirkwood: If people would leave me alone, I could try to do that. The six Commissioners are charged
    1162
    with the responsibility of implementing best employment practice, working with consultants and being the best possible employer. That means being open, fair, efficient, and applying equal opportunities policy. The treatment of staff is a crucial element of Commissioners' work.
    Another onerous responsibility is setting the votes and estimates that are to be placed before the House. They totalled £188 million in 1998–99. Commissioners must work them out with the various domestic committees and the Finance and Services Select Committee, ensuring that all the angles are covered and making proper provision for the expansion in services that we all support. Commissioners also consider staff salaries and Members' services.
    Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kirkwood: For the last time.
    Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman outlined some of the onerous duties of members of the Commission. I see from the last annual report that it met on 13 occasions in the year in question. How long did the average meeting last and how long would he expect the average meeting to last should the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) be appointed, bearing in mind his reputation for, I would not say filibustering, but a degree of prolixity?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Speaker is the Chair of the House of Commons Commission. If it comes to a contest between the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the Speaker about how long a meeting takes, I know who my money is on—every time.
    I described the background and the sort of duties and overall responsibilities that the six of us have to discharge on the collective behalf of hon. Members. I think that it is important for me to share my experience of the past two years. To be a successful Commissioner, one has to understand that the Commission works best as a small, closely knit team. Team working is a crucial part of the operation. Also one needs to accept a fair amount of advice from professional advisers. Members of the Commission need to be able to trust one another implicitly. To work well, the Commission needs to proceed with almost a Quaker-like consensus. Diplomacy and understanding are important for effective service and a need to co-operate on an active and continuing basis would also help.
    The timing of the vacancy is also important. Three extremely serious issues confront the Commission. One is the Braithwaite report, which gives us a chance to reconfigure and modernise the structure of the House of Commons. It is important that that process should not be delayed.
    Secondly, Portcullis house has still to be commissioned. It is important that that public space, which has been the subject of some controversy, is put into the service of hon. Members and their constituents as soon as possible without any further delay.
    Finally, I would gently advise hon. Members that they may not be aware that the Commission is involved in some detailed legal negotiations—in actions in the civil courts. Elements of commercial sensitivity are involved and the protection of the reputation of the House.
    Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kirkwood: No, I am about to sit down.

    1163
    Let us consider the importance of trying to develop a system in which hon. Members feel that the three Commissioners they nominate, one of whom is in front of us this evening, have the confidence of the whole House. This is not a party political matter. They require consensus from both sides of the House. The work is important and the House would be well advised to consider with great care all new nominations.
    10.58 pm
    Angela Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion and will try to be brief. I appreciate that many other hon. Members want to contribute.
    I greatly appreciated the contribution made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which helped to put the debate in context. I was shaken by some of the facial expressions of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
    Mr. David Taylor: They were all the same.
    Angela Smith: I must correct my hon. Friend, as there were several expressions. Sometimes, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seemed quite put out at the depth and breadth of the qualities needed.
    It was helpful to be given an idea of the scope of the work and what the appointment is all about. All hon. Members will agree, I think, that any appointment to an important body needs widespread support from and the confidence of both sides of the House.
    You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the debate on the Braithwaite report, it was said that hon. Members knew little if anything about the work of the Commission. I hope that tonight's debate will put those fears to rest. The contribution from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire should do so and I can see many copies of the report around the Chamber, so hon. Members have clearly done a great deal to remedy that position and ensure that they know a lot more about the work of the Commission. Those hon. Members who are relatively new to the House will have been surprised at the scope of the Commission's work and the fact that it was established in 1978.
    In defence of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, it should be said that he has a reputation in the House for the forensic examination of legislation. That may be a quality that the Commission would find useful. His assiduous attendance on Fridays, particularly when the House considers private Members' Bills, will be known to many.
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: With regard to the assiduous nature of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), when the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) defeated the right hon. Gentleman in a selection contest, the right hon. Gentleman decided not to hold any further surgeries in his constituency. Would such a person be suitable—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the motion.
    Angela Smith: I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), but I
    1164
    agree that that is not a matter for the House tonight when we are considering the qualities of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the work of the Commission.
    Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that someone with a reputation for tedium, repetition and irrelevance would hardly be appropriate to represent the House in that important post on the Commission?
    Angela Smith: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if any Member were guilty of those things, you would rule him or her out of order immediately. Those of us who sat through the debate on the Representation of the People Bill found it enjoyable and interesting.
    Mr. White: The motion talks about not only the appointment of a new member to the Commission but the discharge of a current member. Does my hon. Friend accept that we should consider the reasons for discharging that person, the qualities that he has brought to the post, and whether he should not continue to do the excellent job that he is already doing?
    Angela Smith: If hon. Members seek to divide the House, they will be able to make their own decision about who should be appointed to the Commission.
    We should be addressing two points tonight. One is the role and scope of the Commission, and the other is whether hon. Members feel that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is the person whom they wish to represent their interests on the Commission.
    Many hon. Members who have been involved in private Members' Bills have been impressed by the way in which, at every opportunity, the right hon. Gentleman, regardless of the time available and the merits of the legislation, has sought to examine such Bills in minute detail. I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. It would be fair to say that some of us—perhaps not all—who have sat through many debates have been disappointed that legislation has been lost as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in it. However, he has exercised his right to examine legislation in detail. I wonder if that is a quality that he wishes to bring to the Commission.
    In reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to Madam Speaker keeping the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in order. If Madam Speaker is not available, any member of the Commission can take the Chair. Hon. Members will wish to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman would be an appropriate person to take the Chair in that way.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Does the hon. Lady believe that a Member who has been a highly successful and articulate Minister and is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council is unsuitable to fulfil a position on the Commission of the House of Commons?
    Angela Smith: I am rather surprised by that intervention. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would argue, in his customary style, that all support for any matter should be examined in detail. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a

    1165
    Member of the House's suitability for another role should not be scrutinised because he has been a Minister, I find that surprising. However, I have yet to make up my mind and shall have to listen to the rest of the debate.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Angela Smith: I want to finish this point—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but we must have calm in the House. The hon. Lady will decide whether to give way without assistance from anybody else.
    Angela Smith: I am happy to give way.
    Mr. Swayne: I want to assist the hon. Lady in making up her mind. She referred to the scrutiny exercised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but said earlier—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but Labour Members should behave themselves.
    Mr. Swayne: The hon. Lady is disappointed that that scrutiny has cost a number of Bills that she wanted to progress, but that is as nothing compared with the number of private Members' Bills that her own Government have killed off in this Parliament.
    Angela Smith: Unfortunately, none of the Labour Members to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are here tonight. If they were, I should still want to have exactly the same debate because Members of the House have the right to discuss this appointment in detail. The merits of other Members are irrelevant; we are discussing whether we want the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to represent us on the Commission. Forensic examination of legislation is one of his talents and it is right to consider that in the context of the Commission's role.
    Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of so many Conservative Members shows that they, too, believe that this is an important matter for the House to debate? Indeed, were attendance to be used to judge the issue, it might be considered more important than the health service, the green belt—which we discussed this evening—and many other issues.
    Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, but she is at fault in suggesting that every Conservative Member supports the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and every Labour Member opposes him. We shall have to wait to find out whether that is the case.
    Mr. Salter: There has been much talk about effective scrutiny. I urge my hon. Friend, if she has not already had the opportunity, to read the parliamentary profile of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. She will find that the candidate before us was an apologist for the
    1166
    previous regime in South Africa and described the staff of a citizens advice bureau as a bunch of Trots. Is he suitable?
    Angela Smith: Hon. Members will make up their own minds about that, but I return to the point that I have heard no complaint from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the examination of his appointment. Given his reputation in the House, I am sure that he has none.
    Time is short, so I move on to a couple of the Commission's functions on which hon. Members may want to reflect. Under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, the Commission may from time to time "increase or reduce" the number of House Departments, "allocate functions" to any other House Department or amalgamate or abolish House Departments. We need to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman has any plans along those lines. A number of hon. Members are greatly concerned about that and would want assurances before proceeding with his appointment.
    Helen Jones: I understand that oversight of the Library, which is very important to us, is a duty of the Commission. My hon. Friend will be aware that some hon. Members have been debating whether the Library should stock fiction. Has she examined the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on that matter, in particular his knowledge of contemporary British fiction? Considering his lamentable record as an Education Minister, does she think he is a suitable person to oversee that Department?
    Angela Smith: I have no knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's reading habits, but I think the Conservatives might feel that one novelist in the party is quite enough.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I think that the novelist referred to by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was expelled from the Conservative party today.
    Angela Smith: I am grateful for the information, but I am sure that there are a number of other novelists. Sometimes, when we read Hansard, we could be forgiven for believing that some of it might come from "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland".
    Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Angela Smith: I will give way once more, but I want to make some progress.
    Mr. Dismore: I note that one of the Commission's responsibilities is the Refreshment Department. My hon. Friend may know little about the reading habits of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but does she know anything about his eating habits? I for one would like the Refreshment Department to branch out into more adventurous cuisine, but does my hon. Friend think that the right hon. Gentleman's strong views on Europe may result in a much more traditional approach?
    Angela Smith: Whatever the membership of the Commission, I am sure that hon. Members will wish to submit their dietary requirements. Personally, I would ask for more vegetarian food.

    1167
    As we have heard, one of the Commission's principal roles is that of employer, and many of us are gravely concerned about the commitment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to employment legislation. I would want an assurance that he will support the minimum wage in future. A number of us are concerned about the terms and conditions of employment and the salaries of some of the staff of the House, and I hope that the Commission will address itself to that, whatever its membership.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that a prerequisite for appointment to the Commission is that one voted for the national minimum wage, and that anyone who voted against it should be excluded? Such a prerequisite would exclude most of the Conservative party. That may be the intention of the hon. Lady and others who have spoken, but it is not the way in which the Commission functions.
    Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I do not suggest that every member of the Commission would have to have voted for the national minimum wage, but once something is the law of the land I expect all hon. Members to uphold it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Members should work against the law of the land and try to break it. Indeed, it is a criminal offence not to abide by the legislation on the minimum wage.
    Perhaps my greatest worry relates to paragraph 6(2) to schedule 1 of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, which states:
    "The Commission may determine its own procedure."
    I feel that hon. Members have cause for concern, given the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the procedures of the House, and his boast that he is determined to block legislation that is not given adequate scrutiny. Members of the Commission may want to reflect on how long they want their meetings to last. I would also want some assurances in regard to employment law. I should like to know that the right hon. Gentleman wished to meet representatives of the trade union movement representing the staff of the House to discuss matters.
    The right hon. Gentleman's commitment to forensic examination of legislation does him credit. I am sure that he will agree that tonight's examination of appointments to the Commission is also important.
    I want the regulations of the House to be fully upheld. In 1998, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I'm a deregulator; I'm against regulations on business."
    I hope that he would not think that he was against regulations in the House, because that is one of the functions for which we exist. It is important that we have regulations to govern the way in which we work. Members should reflect carefully on the matters that are before them.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. David Wilshire: It will come as a surprise to some right hon. and hon. Members and a disappointment to others, but as a great relief to you,
    1168
    Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that I have not the slightest intention of detaining the House for more than a few moments.
    These motions are usually not debated but, as it has been decided that this motion will be discussed, we should ensure that the entire motion is discussed. Whatever we may want to say or not say about the Member who is being proposed, we should not let the debate go by—[Interruption.] I am coming to what I want to say about my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If the House is prepared to be serious, we should consider my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who has served the House and who has decided to relinquish his place on the Commission. It would be a pity if, during the debate, it was not made clear that it was our unanimous view that we should say thank you to my right hon. Friend.
    I agree with some of the remarks of Labour Members. They have rightly said that to serve on the Commission is an onerous task. That being so, I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is willing to take on the task and look after my interests. I wish him well.
    11.17 pm
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall make a short contribution to the debate.
    I sometimes chide some of my local government colleagues about the size of their interview panels. After this evening's experience, I shall be on exceedingly dodgy ground if I continue with that approach. I welcome the debate. Sometimes these appointments go by omission and without discussion. Given the importance of the role and function of the Commission and the qualities of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), appropriate or otherwise in terms of the appointment, it is important that we discuss the matter. I hope that our discussion will be welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    My experience in the House since 1 May 1997 is that whenever, for example, a money resolution is before the House for debate, more often than not it is the right hon. Gentleman who intervenes to demand that it should not be moved formally and should be debated in detail. He goes further than that and demands that those who are putting forward the proposition should justify and defend it. I hope that, before this short debate ends, he will seek to justify and support his appointment.
    Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a risk, if he pursues the line that he is apparently intent on in laying compliments on the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, that there may not be sufficient in the House accommodation budget to widen the doors of the Chamber to enable the right hon. Gentleman and his ego to leave it at the end of the debate?
    Mr. Rammell: I shall temper my remarks as I proceed.
    We are discussing a hugely significant role. When the role and function of the Commission were discussed in the context of the Braithwaite report, an intervention by the right hon. Gentleman elicited the response that the Commission is responsible for spending nearly £3 million of taxpayers' money per year. We are talking not about a minor functionary but about one of six

    1169
    Members who have significant responsibilities. It is a huge job. All of us recognise that we need improvements in the running and functioning of the House of Commons. It is within that context that we should judge the qualities, or otherwise, of the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members whom we put forward to serve on the Commission should recognise the need for change within the management of the House of Commons and show an interest in managing the House's affairs better.
    I have nothing against the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I am sure that he has many fine qualities, which, unfortunately, I do not have time to go into.
    Mr. John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a debate on procedure, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said on time limiting Back Bench speeches:
    "Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that another powerful reason in favour of the argument is that the restriction of speeches might discourage incoherent rambling and self-indulgent contributions and would encourage people to structure their speech in advance and produce a tight, taut argument?"—[Official Report, 31 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 1344.]
    In view of what happened last Tuesday evening, does my hon. Friend think that consistency of argument is one of the right hon. Gentleman's strong points?
    Mr. Rammell: That is a valid point. I welcome within the House and, indeed, within the management of the House, constructive and engaged opposition, but to do the job effectively, hon. Members need tolerance and self-restraint. That is one of the qualities that is often lacking in the contributions of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In the context of the debate last Tuesday, I wonder whether it is not a particularly unfortunate time to discuss the matter. Members will remember that the Leader of the Opposition and his Whips lost control of their party, desperately pleaded to the Prime Minister for help—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the motion.
    Mr. Rammell: I am happy to take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    As I have said, I have nothing against the right hon. Gentleman. However, I am sure that not even his closest friends, or members of his family, would say that he recognises the need for change in the management of the House of Commons and the fact that things need to function more effectively. After all, he is the candidate for the status quo. During the debate on 20 January, he said that he was depressed that the Braithwaite report had said that
    "the status quo is not an option."
    Given the need for change in this place, I hardly think that we should put forward someone who is in favour of the status quo: of things continuing as they always have. That has been a consistent feature of the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary career.
    We need people who understand the functioning of the House of Commons Commission. By his own admission, the right hon. Gentleman does not possess that experience. Perhaps in the 13 days since he made that statement, he
    1170
    has undertaken a lot of homework. It is true that, occasionally, we need novices and people who bring new ideas and new experiences, but, for something as significant as the functioning of the House of Commons, it would be dangerous to put forward someone who, by his own admission, does not have that level of understanding and experience
    There is inconsistency in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. We have heard that, in that debate, he called for elections, manifestos and hustings, so that people could put forward their views about the changes that were necessary in the House of Commons, yet, only 13 days later, the intention was to move the motion deep in the night, wholly unremarked, with his appointment, which is based on patronage, slipped through. That inconsistency needs to be challenged.
    Conservative Members have argued for minority representation. In that long night last Tuesday, or Wednesday, the largest number of Opposition Members I remember voting was 16 or 17. Larger minority groupings than that on the Opposition Benches are worthy of representation.
    Other hon. Members have already very effectively made the point on the role played by Commissioners in complying with employment legislation. Although I do not think that anyone would argue that one should have to have voted for the minimum wage to sit on the Commission, in every debate in which I have heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst speak, he has consistently opposed regulation and good employment practice. I am simply not convinced that those are the qualities that we should be looking for when appointing an hon. Member to the Commission.
    Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood): I speak with hesitation, as I am in hopeful anticipation that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will aid my campaign in my constituency at the next general election. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend believe that the right hon. Gentleman—who previously criticised wages councils for setting the minimum wage at £2.33—is a suitable candidate for a position in which he would be responsible for the employment and salaries of many low-paid people in the House?
    Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes that point very effectively, on one of the central concerns of Labour Members about the proposed appointment.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rammell: I shall very briefly give way, but hope that, after it, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst himself will intervene.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of those who work in the House and for all of us are subject to the minimum wage legislation?
    Mr. Rammell: All staff in the House are subject to the minimum wage legislation. However, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) was plucking out that specific example to show that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has a

    1171
    discernible track record of opposing decent employment protection, which raises questions about his suitability to take on the post and responsibility.
    All the facts that I and other hon. Members have provided militate in favour of a judgment that the right hon. Gentleman is unsuited to the position for which he is being proposed. One therefore has to ask why the Conservative Whips have proposed him for the position. I think that it is one of those old management, or Whip, judgments: it is better to have him on the inside with parts of his anatomy projecting outwards than the other way round. Although that might speak volumes for management style in the Conservative party, it should not influence our decision today.
    The bottom line is that, in politics and government, it is a case of horses for courses. I am not quite sure what type of horse the right hon. Gentleman is, but I am absolutely certain that appointment to the House of Commons Commission is not, and should not be, his course.
    I shall finish on a more serious note. When members of the public observe our proceedings in the Chamber, they are often concerned that we are still operating like a 19th century old gentlemen's club, rather than as a modern legislature that is trying to meet the needs and aspirations of people living in the 21st century. I am simply not sure that, with the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman, we shall be facing up to the needs and challenges of the 21st century.
    Mr. Dismore: In the most recent report of the House of Commons Commission, in the section on the responsibilities of the Serjeant at Arms, it states that the number of visitors to the Gallery had increased by more than 188,000. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a very welcome trend? Does he also agree that the activities and behaviour in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have probably had an entirely opposite effect on the trend, so that next year's report may well show a decline in visitors?
    Mr. Rammell: That point is very powerfully made.
    I am simply making the point that we need to be a modern and effective legislature. We need to manage our affairs in the House of Commons effectively. I am not convinced that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman would move us in that direction.
    11.29 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: We have had some fun tonight and there is no harm in that. For what it is worth, over the years I have found many of the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) infuriating. We disagree on many of the social issues that I find most important, such as divorce and abortion. His views on those subjects may well be closer to those of many Labour Members.
    Labour has a large majority in the House. If Labour Members wish to vote down my right hon. Friend they certainly have the power to do so, but I wonder whether they want to send out the message that they are prepared to use their majority to vote down somebody simply because he is a member of the awkward squad, because
    1172
    he is a dedicated parliamentarian, because he does not do what the Whips tell him and because his views are not always those of the majority of Members of Parliament. Surely the Commission has to represent all points of view. Regardless of whether we agree with him, my right hon. Friend is entitled to his point of view.
    11.31 pm
    Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). My reasons for opposing the appointment have nothing to do with the general political views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I do not regard this as an opportunity to take revenge for sleepless nights. I believe that the House has a responsibility to treat appointments to the Commission very seriously, as it has traditionally done. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) for his contribution and the seriousness with which he has taken his role. The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), whom we shall also have to replace shortly. I hope that the Labour Members responsible for nominating his successor will take into account some of the points that have been made during this debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) referred to the very expressive face of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Conservative Members have probably not noticed which issues have provoked the most expressive responses. Some of those issues are serious and relate to the responsibilities of the House of Commons Commission. The first issue to provoke a force 10 "God how ghastly" face was when someone referred to the Commission's responsibilities for child care in the House. One of the Government's most serious failures is that, although we have created new child care places throughout the country—
    Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this speech still in order? Is it still about the qualifications of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order.
    Fiona Mactaggart: We have created extra child care places throughout the country, but we have failed to do so for the children of employees in the House and in Whitehall.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If the hon. Lady bothers to turn to page 9 of the report of the House of Commons Commission, she will see that the first report of the Administration Committee on child care facilities in the House concluded that 79 per cent. of respondents to a questionnaire were generally satisfied with the existing provision.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman obviously takes an interest in these matters, so he will know that the existing provision is a voucher scheme. If someone who cared about and understood child care issues was a

    1173
    member of the Commission—and I advise the House to appoint such a person—the questionnaire would not have been put out in that form.
    Mr. Wilshire: So the hon. Lady would design it to get the answer that she wanted, would she?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I would have preferred a questionnaire that was a more accurate test of the opinions of the people who need child care provision.
    Child care is the first issue that makes the right hon. Gentleman roll his eyes up to the heavens.
    Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that because child care is such an important issue for Members of Parliament, we shall want the Commission to return to it at some point? It is clear that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would have no intention of ensuring that it returned to the issue if he became a member.
    Fiona Mactaggart: It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's face not only that he would not want the Commission to return to the issue, but that he thought it stupid and irrelevant.
    The second issue that made the right hon. Gentleman's eyes do the force-10 roll was when someone talked about consensus and the important role of the Commission in building consensus among right hon. and hon. Members about how the House is run. [Interruption.] He is doing it again, so I am clearly right in my analysis. It is important for us to work together, but not in a party political way.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to know that in April 1998, along with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)
    "forced a late night vote, making Labour MPs troop through the voting lobbies while Tory MPs nipped to the front of the Westminster taxi queue."
    Does that strike my hon. Friend as an example of consensus?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I do not want to spend any more time on the record of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to focus on what the House of Commons Commission should do. If its real job is ensuring good order and good management of the House, it needs to command the respect of the whole House. That has nothing to do with party politics. It is certain that many right hon. and hon. Members have real respect for the work that the right hon. Member for Fareham has done. It is not a party political issue, but involves working in a way that can command the consensus and respect of the House.
    The third lemon was when people started talking about change and modernisation. The latter word usually produces a kind of huff-puff noise from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
    My biggest shock on entering the House was the 19th century way in which we go about much of our business. I know that the House of Commons Commission has tried to modernise certain things and that its members are sometimes frustrated by the pace of change. If we
    1174
    were to appoint to the Commission another member who is committed to slowing the pace of change, we would do the House and the country a disservice. For that reason I find the lack of judgment shown by those responsible for putting forward the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst surprising. It shows a lack of care for the importance of the job; therefore we should throw out their nomination.
    11.38 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The speech by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) sums up the way in which it is possible for a Labour Back Bencher completely to misread the mood of the House. Until she spoke, Conservative Members rather appreciated the irony, wit and good humour of Labour Members giving my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) what I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge is a taste of his own medicine. Instead of their wit, style and grace, she indulged in sour, humourless whingeing.
    My right hon. Friend does not even have to open his mouth in a debate, as the hon. Lady attempts to interpret every twitch of an eyebrow and every flicker of expression. She is slightly living in a time warp—something of which I have occasionally been accused. She reminds me of those Kremlinologists who used to try to determine what was about to emanate from Moscow by judging the expressions of Brezhnev and Chernenko on the podium.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: I am indebted to Andrew Roth's biography of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am sure that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) will be fascinated to learn that, while at school, the right hon. Gentleman was a communist. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Forth indicated assent.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the hon. Member for New Forest, East agree that once a red, always a red and will he be joining us in the Lobby tonight?
    Dr. Lewis: I am delighted to have that piece of information. It only goes to show that, in order to rectify the terrible mistake of his youth, my right hon. Friend will need to go much further to the right than he has already done.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one pre-eminent qualification of my right hon. Friend for the appointment is that, unlike the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), he did not have a charisma bypass operation at birth? [Interruption.]
    Dr. Lewis: I disagree with my hon. Friend only in that he takes for granted the outcome of the nature versus nurture argument. The operation may not have occurred at birth; it might have been when she realised that she was an inheritor of a great deal of money. That is always very embarrassing—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is going downhill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to the main point.
    Dr. Lewis: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I greatly regret the downhill contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which distracted me from the straight and narrow.
    Ms Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his support for his right hon. Friend—as may many of his colleagues—when they realise that, according to Andrew Roth, he campaigned for the entry of the UK to the European Community.
    Mr. Forth indicated assent.
    Dr. Lewis: I am indebted to the hon. Lady for pointing out that fact. I was not aware of it. I might seriously reconsider my support for my right hon. Friend, but for the fact that he still has time to make good that deficiency.
    In conclusion, I make two serious points. The first is that, if my right hon. Friend does such a great disservice to the House as is alleged, why has he been selected as one of the final four in the competition for Opposition politician of the year? I am sure that that will be acknowledged on both sides of the House. [Interruption.]
    The Government—
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).
    The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 108.

    Division No. 61]

    [11.43 pm

    AYES

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Green, Damian

    Beggs, Roy

    Greenway, John

    Bercow, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Boswell, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brady, Graham

    Hayes, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Heald, Oliver

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Butterfill, John

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cash, William

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chope, Christopher

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clappison, James

    Lansley, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward

    Clwyd, Ann

    Letwin, Oliver

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Cran, James

    Lidington, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Loughton, Tim

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Luff, Peter

    Day, Stephen

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Madel, Sir David

    Duncan, Alan

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Paice, James

    Fabricant, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Flight, Howard

    Pickles, Eric

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Pound, Stephen

    Fraser, Christopher

    Prior, David

    Gibb, Nick

    Randall, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robertson, Laurence

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    1176

    Ruffley, David

    Viggers, Peter

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wardle, Charles

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Whittingdale, John

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Spring, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Swayne, Desmond

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Syms, Robert

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Townend, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tredinnick, David

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Trend, Michael

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Allan, Richard

    Laxton, Bob

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Linton, Martin

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Blackman, Liz

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Mallaber, Judy

    Borrow, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Merron, Gillian

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Miller, Andrew

    Browne, Desmond

    Moffatt, Laura

    Burgon, Colin

    Moore, Michael

    Cann, Jamie

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Casale, Roger

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Clapham, Michael

    O'Neill, Martin

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Corston, Jean

    Pearson, Ian

    Cotter, Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Cox, Tom

    Pike, Peter L

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Plaskitt, James

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Davidson, Ian

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Dawson, Hilton

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Dobbin, Jim

    Roy, Frank

    Drew, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Efford, Clive

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Sanders, Adrian

    Ennis, Jeff

    Savidge Malcolm

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Sawford Phil

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Gerrard, Neil

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

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Stunell, Andrew

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Healey, John

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Tyler, Paul

    Heppell, John

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Hesford, Stephen

    Watts, David

    Hope, Phil

    Webb, Steve

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    White, Brian

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Willis, Phil

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Wise, Audrey

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Wood, Mike

    Woolas, Phil

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Keetch, Paul

    Angela Smith and

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Mr. Bill Rammell.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government

    1177
    have just lost a Division on a motion in the name of a Minister. Will Government Front Benchers be tabling a motion to rescind the decision of the House?
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware that this is a matter for the House. It has been consistently so over many years; the precedent is well known. The House has made its decision.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the House would benefit from prolonged discussion of the matter. Neither the business of the House nor how right hon. and hon. Members vote is a matter of order for the Chair. There is nothing further that I can add on the issue.
    Mr. Butterfill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been debating extensively a Government motion, yet it is clear that the Government did not vote for it. Is that not an abuse of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that how right hon. and hon. Members vote is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not extraordinary that the proposer of the motion neither spoke, moved or voted on it?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The will of the House has been expressed. In the light of the particular circumstances in which we have found ourselves, would it be appropriate, through you, to invite the House of Commons Commission to make fresh proposals on how the job should be fulfilled?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a question on which I can rule. Tonight's proceedings will be studied and I have no doubt appropriate action will be forthcoming.

    PETITIONS

      Liane Singleton
      11.58 pm
      Mr. Phil Woolas: I should like to present a petition, on which there are 8,000 signatures, on behalf of Mr. Gordon and Mrs. Jaqueline Singleton, which states:
      For the brutal murder and dismemberment of Liane Singleton, aged eighteen years, a life sentence should mean life and not a minimum of fifteen years for murderer Paul Stowers who will be young enough to do it again.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons asks the Secretary of State for the Home Office to look specifically at this case, with a view to ensuring that Paul Stowers serves the whole of the life sentence imposed upon him for his heinous crime.
      The petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Television Licences
      11.59 pm
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: On behalf of the Lowestoft branch of the Suffolk Pensioners Association, whose members believe that the cost of a television licence is high in relation to the value of the state pension, I wish to present a petition bearing 2,000 signatures. The petition was started before the Government announcement of free television licences for the over-75s. The original demand, for half-price television licences for all pensioners, has been modified. The petition states:
      To the House of Commons.
      The Petition of the Suffolk Pensioners Association
      Declares that the TV licence has now been increased to over £100 p.a. In view of the below subsistence level of the old age pension, the Association, on behalf of all pensioners, believe they are entitled to a reduced licence fee of 50%
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider reducing the TV licence fee to £50 for all pensioners who will not receive a free licence under the government's current proposals.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Cattle Welfare (East Anglia)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    12 midnight
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The subject of this debate is of importance to my constituents and to the whole of East Anglia. The over-30-months slaughter scheme was introduced to cull cattle and so to deal with the BSE problem and to take those cattle out of the human food chain. Since then, in a renewal of contracts, the Intervention Board has caused East Anglia to lose all its slaughterhouse facilities under the scheme. The net results are longer journeys for cattle within East Anglia and a considerable financial burden placed on East Anglia's farmers.
    In many ways, tonight's debate is a continuation of one that was held before Christmas in Westminster Hall, which was about problems in the west country. However, the problem in East Anglia is quite different. East Anglia is unique in that there is almost no infrastructure for cattle distribution. Of 170 markets in the country, there are now only two in East Anglia that are capable of dealing with such a large geographical area. In previous debates, Ministers have been keen to stress the network of markets that would be available to deal with the problem, but that argument obviously does not apply in East Anglia, with its limited facilities.
    On 20 January, I presented a petition of 1,450 signatures protesting against the decision to remove the right of Cheale Meats to perform a necessary service. It is interesting to note that the petition was signed not by members of the general public, but by farmers from all over East Anglia. Given the number of dairy farmers in the region, the number of signatures represents almost all of them. Farmers are rightly upset by the loss of facilities. They are even more concerned by rumours circulating that the casualty slaughtering facility in Cambridge is to be lost, leaving East Anglia without both an OTMS slaughterhouse and a casualty slaughterhouse.
    In a written reply, the Minister told me that there were relatively few cattle in East Anglia, which is why the region was lumped in with south-east England. However, it is clear that the Intervention Board put geography second in its consideration of the matters within its remit. A look at a map clearly shows how difficult the issue of journey times is in East Anglia. In another written reply, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me:
    "As a result of the changes being introduced following the tender, some journey times will, inevitably, increase, but in no case will the journey times exceed those laid down by animal welfare guidelines. Some journey times will decrease."—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 183W.]
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation that he describes is mirrored in Devon, where there is no slaughterhouse left operating under the over-30-months scheme? Does he agree that the Agriculture Minister would be better employed addressing that problem, considering issuing a challenge under
    1180
    article 30, and introducing honesty in labelling, instead of wringing his hands and pretending that he cannot do anything?
    Mr. Pickles: I intervened in my hon. Friend's debate, and I was struck by the gravity of the situation in the west country. I know that my hon. Friend is pursuing the matter vigorously.
    Some journey times will be reduced—16 per cent.—but 84 per cent. of farmers in East Anglia will face longer journey times when they take their cows to be slaughtered. That means extra effort for them and extra stress and discomfort for animals at the end of their natural lifespan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has been extremely helpful, said recently, it is a matter of humanity rather than of cost.
    We have figures showing that if a farmer takes his cow from Yarmouth directly to the designated abattoir in Chesterfield, that is a journey of 157 miles. If he takes the cow from Stevenage to Colchester, then on to an abattoir in Kent, that is 165 miles. The journey from Cambridge is 201 miles and from King's Lynn 181 miles.
    In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), the Minister said:
    "I have asked the Intervention Board about the 130-mile figure—the figure of 160 miles was cited in one press release. I do not believe that a journey of 130 miles will be involved."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 173WH.]
    However, it is clear that journeys of well over 160 miles will be commonplace in East Anglia.
    It is not surprising that Mr. Barney Kay, the livestock adviser to the National Farmers Union's East Anglia region, commented:
    "A cow that is delivered in the morning to Colchester will be sent down to the abattoir in Kent by the evening, where it may have to wait overnight to be slaughtered the next day. For an old dairy cow this is a protracted and uncomfortable process."
    That is, perhaps, a nice way of putting it. For many cows, it will be a frightening, painful and confusing experience. It will be the first—and last—journey of their life. They were born on the farm and they are part of a herd.
    In all my dealings with farmers, I have been struck by how deeply worried they are about their animals' welfare. I have received many letters on the subject, but let one letter speak for them all. It is from Mrs. Helen Hall of The Orchards, who is a farmer in my constituency. She writes that she has a small suckler herd of red poll cattle. She wants their last journey to be as unstressful as possible. She said:
    "All my cattle now have been born on the farm, live in a family group and only travel to new pasture in the summer. A long journey by lorry whether to Derby or Kent is not a pleasant thought … how many times has one been stuck in traffic jams on the M25 or at the Dartford crossing, let alone on the Ashford road. Think of the poor cattle on hot summer days stuck in an unfamiliar lorry without their herd."
    That point should be borne in mind.
    The Intervention Board's disposal of public money does not inspire confidence. It has awarded contracts to organisations that were not running abattoirs. It awarded a contract to a slaughterhouse in Kent, which, in the words of the Eastern Daily Press is
    "closer to the Dutch coast than to farmers in remote broadlands."
    The Scottish Farmer reported that it awarded contracts to a company in Kilmarnock that was in deep financial trouble. The Intervention Board did not even undertake a basic credit check before awarding the contract.

    1181
    In a written reply on 24 January, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), said that while a credit check was undertaken on those companies with which the Intervention Board had no dealings,
    "similar reports were not sought in respect of companies with whom IB already had a satisfactory and long-standing contractual relationships"—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 9W.]
    Is that the way in which the Government go about awarding contracts? I could not believe it, so I sought answers from various Departments to ascertain whether it was the Government's practice not to undertake a credit check on companies. I am pleased to say that the circumstances that we are considering seem to be exceptional.
    Today, I received a reply from the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor whether the credit rating of companies that tendered for services provided by the Treasury was checked before contracts were awarded. The reply stated:
    "Treasury decisions on an individual bidding company's financial standing take account of the latest available audited and interim accounts and any other relevant published information including credit and debt rating."
    The Treasury carries out a credit check on companies if it has any worries about them even after the contract has been awarded.
    The Intervention Board's actions are truly astonishing. I have a report on the credit rating of a company—not the Scottish company—that I shall not name because I do not want to add to its financial troubles. Its condition was described as poor; it showed "significant levels of risk". The report recommended that
    "before extending credit, suppliers seek suitable assurances and guarantees."
    Yet the Intervention Board did not bother to carry out the most basic checks. The board's financial checking speaks volumes about the way in which they undertake the whole process.
    The Intervention Board makes a spurious claim that £5 million has been saved by the process. That figure can be reached only by comparing the old contract price with the new contract price. If one examines the new tendering procedures in which all the companies bid, the figure of £5 million begins to evaporate. We are considering a significant transfer of costs. If all East Anglian farmers decide to send their cattle along the Intervention Board's preferred routes, through the two markets, an extra £1 million will be added to the cost of their haulage.
    Let us consider welfare, and the extra time that will be involved in transportation. Eight hours is the permitted time, and extensions are available. If we assume a minimum turn-around time of two and a half hours for identification, live weighing and reloading, travel to Stevenage will mean a total of eight hours, travel to Cambridge will mean nearly nine hours and travel to Aylesbury will mean eight and a half hours.
    Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pickles: I shall give way gladly because the hon. Lady has been most helpful in the campaign, and shares many of my worries.
    Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken to farmers meetings in our adjoining constituencies.
    1182
    It may not be apparent why a representative of Basildon is interested in farming. However, several farms in my constituency are affected, and 30 per cent. of the work force of Cheale's, which may soon lay off staff, are from my constituency.
    I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about animal welfare. When the Minister responds, will she deal with the fact that journey times for animals going to slaughter will increase? Surely, we should slaughter animals as near to the point of production as possible, rather than extend the journey time.
    Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is right. I recognise that her constituency interest—the work force at Cheale Meat—is important. Initially, like me, she became interested in the matter because of the company and its work force, but it has rapidly become clear that the issue is really animal welfare.
    The Prime Minister said yesterday:
    "We need a new direction for farming to meet the present day challenge."
    The most pressing present day challenge for farmers in East Anglia is longer journey times and the extra suffering caused to their cattle. The dilatory and incompetent Intervention Board is causing those farmers great grief.
    We do not blame the Minister—we do not believe that she has been a party to these bad decisions—but there comes a time when we must join the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has said that we must reconsider and reopen the tenders because to stick with the existing situation is to condemn cattle.
    These cattle are near the end of their natural lifespan and many of them are milkers. They need to be milked on such a long journey, but they will not be. They will be very frightened. As we enter the first year of this new century, I do not believe that that is any way to treat cattle.
    12.16 am
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on securing this debate. I know that he has been active on the issue. Indeed, as he said, he has tabled a number of written questions on the subject. He intervened briefly in the previous debate on the subject before Christmas and he has also presented a petition on it. Other hon. Members and hon. Friends have also expressed concern about the situation in their areas. Indeed, I have had a number of meetings with Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), to discuss the situation.
    The debate is entitled, "Cattle Welfare (East Anglia)", although it could just as easily have been entitled, "Changes to the over-30-month scheme and the loss of contracts in abattoirs"—in this case, the Cheale Meat abattoir in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
    A number of animal welfare concerns have been raised, as have other concerns associated with employment, geographical distribution and so forth. Many of those matters were mentioned in the earlier debate.
    The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the changes in the number and location of over-30-month-scheme abattoirs stem from a competitive tender

    1183
    held by the Intervention Board at the end of last year. The new arrangements were introduced on 4 January and I am pleased to have this further opportunity to discuss their operation in the light of practical experience of the new contracts so far.
    Obviously, I recognise—I have never tried to disguise it—that the reduction in the number of contracted abattoirs is an important and sensitive issue for farmers and for animal welfare. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I have watched closely the operation of the new arrangements so far, have asked for regular reports from the Intervention Board and have had a number of meetings.
    Many of the concerns that were predicted by hon. Members, such as long waiting lists and inadequate access, have not materialised, and, in many respects, the new arrangements are settling in well. However, I assure hon. Members, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, that, as I have said in the past, I am committed to monitoring the situation, and, if it appears not to be working, I shall reconsider it. It will be kept under close review.
    Mr. Pickles: I, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and other hon. Members are keen to meet the Minister with a group of farmers to discuss the problem. Is she minded to meet us in the reasonably near future?
    Ms Quin: In principle, I am certainly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's request. I have met farmers around the country, including in my own area. I should point out that one of the abattoirs that lost a contract was in my constituency, which rather gives the lie to some of the criticisms in the south-west press which suggested that somehow or other I was personally completely immune to the process. That is not so. For such reasons, I have considered closely what the Intervention Board has done, but I believe that it has acted properly in the negotiation of the tendering process.
    Arrangements before this tender round dated back to 1997. As is common practice, they were reviewed to ensure that they represented good value and continued to meet the need. As I said in the earlier debate, as a Minister I have to respond to the Public Accounts Committee, which, as the hon. Gentleman may know, has in the past been critical of the high rates paid to OTMS abattoirs. The Public Accounts Committee's report previously marked the service out as one which required close attention by officials, and I need to respond to such concerns. Following the expression of those concerns, the Intervention Board rightly recommended to UK Agriculture Ministers that the slaughtering contract should be re-tendered.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, carefully considered the board's advice and accepted its recommendation. The tender process was started last August and concluded with the announcement of the award of contracts at the end of last year.
    I stress that tenders were evaluated against published objective criteria and final decisions were taken by a project board, comprising representatives of the Intervention Board, the four Agriculture Departments and
    1184
    expert bodies such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Meat Hygiene Service. It is important to stress that, because so often, in the earlier debate and this debate, statements have been made as if the Intervention Board is somehow acting in a vacuum and is not involved with other interested bodies with a real interest in seeing that the service works well.
    I have examined in detail the way in which the tender process has been handled, and, the evidence that I have—I am always willing to look at evidence—shows that it has been conducted professionally and impartially, in a way which will stand up to scrutiny, which may well come about through bodies such as the Audit Commission and the PAC, which have already scrutinised the processes in the past. It is true that the tender has resulted in further efficiencies, but that has not been at the expense of animal welfare considerations or quality of service.
    The hon. Gentleman understandably spoke a great deal about the welfare of animals going for slaughter. I accept that fewer abattoirs have been contracted, but capacity is broadly the same. Furthermore, tenders were considered geographically to provide sufficient capacity to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised. Clearly there is a balance to strike between the number of contracted abattoirs and the efficiency of the operation. The hon. Gentleman referred to my written answer. Numbers are lower in East Anglia compared with the south-west, the midlands and parts of the north of England. Although some animals face a longer journey time to the point of slaughter, many face a shorter journey.
    Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Lady must recognise that 84 per cent. of farmers taking animals to slaughter face longer journey times. Surely she cannot be saying that journeys of 160, 180 or 200 miles are acceptable?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman refers to journeys of 200 miles, but I do not know where that figure comes from. The abattoir in his constituency regularly took cattle not only from Sussex and Kent, but the Thames valley and even Wiltshire. Animals will now travel shorter distances to slaughter and there is sufficient capacity in each area of the United Kingdom to deal with animals that come forward. Obliging animals to undertake lengthy journeys is the last thing I would want and in theory we look for a limit of eight hours. In practice, very few journeys get remotely near that.
    This is not simply a matter of distance as the conditions in which animals are transported are also relevant. A brief journey in appalling conditions can be more stressful than a somewhat longer one in better vehicles. Many aspects of animal welfare such as vehicle type, vibration, noise, movement, temperature and humidity, space and separation, food and rest, animal handling and loading and unloading were not referred to by the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members. All those issues are vital, which is why I commend the work done by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in co-operation—
    Mr. Pickles: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Quin: I have only two minutes.
    Mr. Pickles: May I make a brief point?
    Ms Quin: I give way, but if we run out of time I shall be accused of not addressing the issues in full and I should be sorry about that.
    Mr. Pickles: That accusation will not be made by me. The Minister did not mention the age of the animal involved. Does she agree that that is rather important?
    Ms Quin: I certainly agree, but the age of an animal is also important in relation to the different types of conditions of transport. We want to ensure that older animals are carried in conditions that are as satisfactory as possible. The Government have been working actively with organisations such as the Humane Slaughter Association precisely to tackle some of those animal welfare issues. Overall, animals travel shorter distances than they did a few years ago. The whole thrust of Government policy on animal transit—not only for
    1186
    over-30-month animals, but generally—is going in entirely the right direction and I pay tribute to what my colleagues have done in that respect.
    Obviously I recognise that concern has been expressed, but I spoke to farmers before and immediately after Christmas, and more recently, and the number of concerns has dropped dramatically. In many parts of the country, farmers feel that the arrangements are working satisfactorily.
    Mr. Pickles: Not in East Anglia.
    Ms Quin: Waiting times are an important aspect of the debate. There is no waiting time in East Anglia at present for over-30-month cattle. I am glad of that and it is—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Twelve midnight.

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

Military Exports
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I express my appreciation through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for Madam Speaker's having given me the chance to initiate the debate, which is topical on two levels. First, the systems of the Export Credits Guarantee Department are currently being reviewed. Secondly, it is topical in terms of the debate on the arms trade. There have been recent controversial cases involving Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and other countries. The debate provides an opportunity to bring the two issues together.
I wish to argue that the use of the ECGD to support British arms exports undermines our ethical foreign policy, that it is a bad use of taxpayers' money, that it undermines development and that it adds unnecessarily to the shroud of secrecy that surrounds Government business. I have agreed a division of labour with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge); I shall concentrate on economics and my hon. Friend will concentrate on ethics, in which she is much better qualified than I am.
I shall start with an anecdote. Almost exactly 25 years ago, I was a Foreign Office official in the Latin American department. I was a first secretary, and much of my time, along with my colleagues, was spent running round worrying about General Pinochet and the chaos in Argentina. Among other things, the British arms industry was very active selling goods to Latin American Governments, who were mainly dictatorships. On one occasion, I think that it was Yarrow which was in the middle of trying to secure a large contract with Ecuador. I was approached by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade, which thought that it would be a good idea if the Foreign Office lobbied the Treasury. The Treasury had dug its heels in and said, "We are not willing to give export cover through the ECGD for Ecuador."
I sent what I thought was a rather convincing minute to the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Callaghan, which included phrases that I thought would appeal to a Labour Foreign Secretary. It was all about jobs on the Clyde. Somewhat to my surprise, he sent a rather curt minute, which read, "I am sorry but I have absolutely no intention of writing to the Treasury on this matter. I think that it is a bad use of British taxpayers' money to be suggesting that it should be used to subsidise toys for admirals in Ecuador." I felt rather snubbed at the time but I think, on reflection, that it was an extremely wise judgment and one that increased my respect for Lord Callaghan.
Many of the arguments of those days reverberate today, and essentially they are the arguments that I am advancing. The context is one in which the arms
182WH
industry is a relatively small but quite important part of Britain's export business. It makes up about 2.5 to 3 per cent. of it. However, it has a much larger profile in terms of the ECGD. When I was involved, it was about 10 per cent. of ECGD business, and that continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, it increased to more than 20 per cent. Last year, more than half the business written by the ECGD involved the armaments trade. It has become extremely important.
The key factor is that, however we dress up the language, the trade is subsidised. It is often said that the ECGD operates on a self-financing basis, but, in underlying economic terms, it does not. It is important to set out the reasons for that, and I rely quite heavily on some very good analytical work done by the centre for defence studies at the university of York, by Professor Keith Hartley and Steve Martin among others. The point they make is that taxpayers' subsidy for arms exports through the ECGD consists of various elements. One is an interest subsidy, which operates in some instances. There is a difference between the interest rate paid by the customer and the interest rate charged by the banks, and the ECGD covers that difference.
In addition, and probably more important, the ECGD provides political risk insurance. There is a market for such insurance, but, in many instances, the cost would be prohibitive. In effect, the ECGD provides a subsidised rate.
Another perspective is public investment. If London Transport or the Post Office were borrowing money for a new investment, the Treasury would expect them to earn a return of about 6 per cent. in real terms. The ECGD is not expected to earn that return. Instead, it is expected to break even. With a little work on a calculator, it is clear that the present value of a loan—it is the difference between a 6 per cent. return and a nil return—can be substantial when large sums are involved.
That is a generous interpretation, because the public accounts show that the ECGD is not even breaking even. Last year, there was a net deficit of £217 million. The Government's three-year public accounts projections include an expected deficit of more than £800 million in 2001–02. We are talking about something that is clearly sub-economic, and that applies to the armaments business in particular.
Attempts have been made—I have referred to the York economists—to quantify the cost to the taxpayer. The figures are obviously imprecise because there are no definitive numbers, but the economists have come up with figures that seem plausible. They have estimated that about £240 million a year is the cost to the taxpayer of arms exports alone, within the ECGD's portfolio. They have taken account of the losses over the past 10 years and applied 30 per cent. of them, which is the estimate of the rough proportion of arms business to the total. Having thought about the figures, I find that estimate rather conservative. For example, 40 per cent. of the ECGD's outstanding debts stem from arms business. Therefore, 30 per cent.—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has initiated an extremely important debate and I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of his remarks. It is extraordinary that there are no Labour Members present apart from the Minister, who looks bereft.

183WH
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not examine only one side of the balance sheet. Will he look at the other side too? That would show that, without these defence exports, Britain could not afford to buy equipment for its armed forces that had been manufactured in the United Kingdom. The economies of scale would be such that it would be prohibitively expensive.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is correct in an economic context. I accept that. There is a balance of views in terms of reducing the cost of procurement, to which the hon. Gentleman has correctly pointed. There are also debits which I have not mentioned. There are many Ministry of Defence costs involved in the selling process. Much equipment should probably have been bought abroad on economic grounds, but it is manufactured here because of the support that the industry receives from the arms export business. The York studies to which I have referred suggest that, when all the economic factors are taken into account, including the important point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, the outturn is a substantial negative.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a slight distortion in the statistics inasmuch as, for 1998–99, the figures show that more than half of ECGD funding was defence related? However, that was a one-off because it was the result of the Asian financial crisis. When account is taken of a longer period, we see that the average annual funding is about 13 per cent. When we talk about percentages and what is funded via the ECGD, recent years have shown blips and distortions, which perhaps give a rather different picture from the norm.
Dr. Cable: There are blips and distortions, which is why I said a few moments ago that I would not regard the figure that I quoted as a mechanical slide-rule projection of what will happen in future.
It is useful, however, to think about some of the reasons that might trigger future defaults. I had not seen the detailed figures until I prepared for the debate, but a large part of British outstanding export credit debt is owed by Indonesia. That arises from the Hawk contract, which involves £750 million. About £50 million of that has already been written off. I understand that the Indonesians are continuing to service their interest. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the Indonesian political environment might completely unravel. We know that there is a virtual civil war in several parts of that country. I can envisage circumstances in which all the outstanding debt would have to be written off.
A large part of the lumpiness to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) refers relates particularly to contracts with Saudi Arabia and Brunei. It may be that, in 10 or 20 years' time, those countries will be stable and continuing to pay their debts. However, one of my last jobs in the oil industry before entering Parliament was to examine the public finances of Saudi Arabia. It was not a terribly happy scene. The Saudis have enormous private assets overseas, but their public sector financing is vulnerable. I shall be surprised if they remain solvent for the next
184WH
five or 10 years, particularly if the oil market becomes adverse to their interests. There are blips—the hon. Lady is right—but it would be unwise to be complacent about the ECGD's capacity to continue to have its debts serviced.
In addition to taxpayer costs, there are a couple of other reasons why one should worry about this part of ECGD business. One is the impact on development. Even someone as hard-headed as Mr. Camdessus of the International Monetary Fund has argued that it is undesirable for western countries to use the ECGD, or a comparable export credit agency, to provide debt-related financing to many developing countries. The simple reason is that they acquire a fixed interest obligation, not a productive asset.
The logic of that is accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the Mauritius agreement, the Government have agreed that export credit guarantees for armaments will not be applied to, I think, 63 developing countries; initially, it was 40.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Is he aware that the Chancellor's much vaunted ethical dimension to export credits is totally, utterly and completely meaningless? Of the 63 countries that he says will no longer be eligible for credit guarantees in respect of defence exports from this country, only one has received ECGD defence credits since 1987: Kenya, which accounted for, I think, £60 million. It is complete and absolute nonsense. The Chancellor is posing as a friend of the third world. It is totally hypocritical.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be easy for the hon. Gentleman to get into the debate without long interventions. They are not helpful.
Dr. Cable: I was aware that most of the countries were off cover. I had not realised that the position was as extreme as the hon. Gentleman describes. He makes a valid point. If the Chancellor accepts the logic of withdrawing export credit cover for armaments to low-income countries, why will that not be applied to all low-income countries, including those on cover? Indeed, why will it not be applied to all developing countries? All sorts of inconsistencies are creeping into the admittedly more developmentally minded approach that the ECGD has adopted under the Government.
There are all sorts of anomalies, which the Minister could perhaps explain. For example, as of the end of last year, all exporters have been required to fill in a questionnaire on environmental sustainability, but armament exporters are spared that chore. Why? If it is a serious restriction, why will it not be applied to them?
In addition to the cost to the taxpayer and the impact on development, export credit guarantee support of arms exports creates an additional tier of secrecy in a part of Government that should be more open. The ECGD annual report of 1997–98, when about one quarter of British exports through the ECGD were armaments, devoted two and a half paragraphs to arms exports. That was rather less than was devoted to a public transport project in Panama. Last year, when the share of arms in the ECGD's portfolio grew to 50 per cent., the coverage in the annual report contracted to two lines. That is absurd.

185WH
Many Members who table parliamentary questions often find that the answers are cryptic in the extreme. It is an area of secrecy, which is not necessary. Major General Sharman, chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association, has said as much. He sees no reason why there should not be much more openness.
The Minister may be able to explain why it is not possible to break down—perhaps he will—British arms exports through the ECGD by country and by contract. Why cannot we be told which British companies benefit, in order of merit? There is an assumption that British Aerospace benefits most, but it would be useful to know. Why can we not know? Can we not be given a breakdown of the business by country, by contract and by sums of money? Can we not be given a breakdown of the debt outstanding to the ECGD by country, by project and by sums of money? All that would help us to understand what is going on. The fact that we are not given that information, or not given it easily, creates an impression that something is going wrong, when it may not be.
The conclusion is that continuing to support arms exports through the ECGD is unattractive. There is quite wide political consensus on that point. A short time ago, we tabled early-day motion 191, which 95 Members have supported, most of them Labour Back Benchers. On the other side of the political spectrum, one of the most scathing and penetrating criticisms of the way in which the ECGD operates was provided by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), as he now is, who was special adviser to two Chancellors and who exposed many of the arguments that I have advanced.
Moreover, one of the most articulate criticisms of the use of the ECGD for export credit cover is provided by the free market economist Sam Brittan, who clearly believes that people who believe in competitive markets should not support the practice. Across the spectrum, there is growing criticism of the practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Sam Brittan's article in the infamous free market New Statesman?
Dr. Cable: I was, but before Sam Brittan defected to the New Statesman, he was saying much the same thing in the Financial Times. I do not know his politics, but I have read his eloquent writings, which are very much in a free market vein and with much of which I agree. My point is that the criticism is eclectic. It is not driven from any particular standpoint.
I go over some of the arguments that are advanced for not stopping the practice. The first is about jobs. There is, of course, a compelling argument here. None of us wants to be flippant about people's jobs. It is estimated that roughly 150,000 jobs, mainly in the aerospace industry, are effectively subsidised by ECGD export credits for arms: roughly £2,000 a job. It is not clear why those jobs should be subsidised, rather than others. We go back to the argument about why we have such selective intervention by the taxpayer, but if the Government feel that a particular segment of manufacturing industry needs public support—perhaps it does; perhaps there is a special argument about capital goods, although I am not sure what that is—why can that not be dealt with by developing the civil side of the ECGD business instead?
186WH
If the Minister talks to the Confederation of British Industry or the Engineering Employers Federation, he will find much frustration—it relates partly to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—that many countries are currently off cover. A good recent example was a big public transport contract with Iran, which other export credit agencies were willing to support and the ECGD does not. If there really is a feeling that the ECGD should be used to promote British exports and jobs in that sector, why can that not be done by rebalancing the portfolio in favour of civil products?
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will have noted with some interest—which is why I am surprised at his last comment—the third report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the future of the ECGD. One of its conclusions states:
"Some suggest that defence exports close out other exports; we have received no evidence to indicate that ECGD is biased towards defence-related exports, nor that there is a substantial default rate."
Dr. Cable: As the hon. Lady implied in the first sentence of her quotation, there is a debate as to whether there is a real opportunity cost. It is an open debate. As there are well-developed lines of communication with the big armaments exporters such BAe, it is easier to continue to support the arms business. Of course it receives much political support as well through Ministers and intergovernmental relationships, but I should have thought that, with a major effort, there is no reason why the balance of the portfolio should not be shifted and why dependence on arms export trade should not be reduced.
The next argument advanced could be encapsulated in the question, "Why should Britain do it on its own?", and in the belief that, if it is a desirable policy, we should do it as part of a multilateral initiative. There is some sense in the argument. However, I sometimes fail to understand why we take the view that we should not stop harming ourselves unless other countries agree to do the same. It is a fallacy pervading much of trade policy.
In many respects, the Government have given the lie to that argument in their debt relief initiatives. British Governments—not only the current one, although the current Chancellor has done much very good pioneering work on debt relief—including the two previous, Conservative Chancellors, have gone out on their own on debt relief for low-income countries. It is part of the multilateral initiative that we should relieve debt before other countries do so, and we implicitly accepted that, by our writing off some of our debt, the Japanese, the Germans and the Americans might recover their debt rather sooner. Therefore, if policy is right, it is better to implement it both unilaterally and multilaterally. I argue for doing both in parallel.
Some people argue that there are countries that, for perfectly good reasons, want to acquire our armaments, and that there are perfectly good reasons for letting them have them. I am not a pacifist and see good reasons why many developing couples might wish to arm themselves.
India, for example, is a democratic country—at least as democratic as we are—and is well run, with a relatively successful economy and a reasonable standard

187WH
of governance. It is threatened from at least two directions and might wish to acquire British arms. However, if it does wish to acquire British arms, there is no reason why it should not buy them on the market. If we want to help India as a developing country, we could help it through the aid programme. There is no justification for keeping the ECGD's role in all of this as a disguised way of helping India or other worthy developing countries to acquire the armaments that they need for their defence.
I believe that Britain should cease to provide ECGD credit cover for armaments by phasing it out. We should do so on our own, but simultaneously try to develop a multilateral initiative. I hope that, as a first step in the debate, the Minister will open up the whole subject and lift some of the secrecy enveloping it.
9.52 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to speak in this debate, although I have to confess that initially I had not intended to do so. Last week, I saw on the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) had been successful in securing this debate, on an extremely important subject, and so it did not come as a complete surprise to me.
I was very interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. He comes from an oil background and will know probably better than I that Britain's most important and largest defence export arrangement is the Al-Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia, which is based substantially on the oil market. It is a complicated transaction, but essentially involves defence exports for oil. My view of the contract—to which I shall return later—is not as pessimistic as his, as I think that there are important lessons to be learned from it.
My background, before being elected to the House, includes 12 years in international banking. I now represent the Aldershot constituency, which includes Farnborough, where the headquarters of what we now have to call BAe Systems are located. Formerly, the company was known to us all as British Aerospace, and I suspect that—despite the efforts of the company's management—it will continue to be called British Aerospace.
Nevertheless, BAe Systems is not only Britain's most important defence contractor, but is now the third largest defence contractor in the world. It is therefore an extremely important company not only to my constituency, but to the whole of the United Kingdom.
My association with British Aerospace goes back over many years, but was particularly close when I was in the City, in international banking, and acutely aware of the importance of defence exports. I had discussions with British Aerospace about various projects on which it was seeking to secure support.
I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Twickenham that he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that there is a realistic prospect of withdrawing ECGD support for export sales without a markedly damaging effect on Britain's most successful manufacturing industry—the aerospace industry. The reality—as was
188WH
brought home to me every time I discussed these matters with British Aerospace and other defence contractors—is that other defence manufacturers around the world enjoy the support of their domestic equivalent of the ECGD, whether it be COFACE, in France, or the American organisation, the name of which I cannot remember—
Dr. Cable: Ex-Im bank.
Mr. Howarth: No; it might be federal military sales. In any case, United States industry benefits from the financial support of the United States Government.
I therefore tell the hon. Member for Twickenham that—however much I am impressed by his adherence to free market economics, which is a belief not always expressed by Liberal Democrat Members; I certainly welcome the philosophy that he has expounded—the practical reality of the world in which we live is that if we withdrew support, we should be doing great damage to our own defence manufacturing base, which is a very important component of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman lightly dismissed defence manufacturing as 2 to 3 per cent. of Britain's economic activity, but the fact is that it employs 400,000 people in the United Kingdom.
Although the Minister is not supported by a great many other Labour Members today, he is a formidable man in his own right and is worth 10 of his Labour colleagues. I have no fear that he will not be able to rise to the challenge that he has been offered by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Nevertheless, the truth is that many Labour Members represent constituencies in which defence contracting is a very important component. I am honestly surprised that none of those Labour Members are participating in this debate, because they are always evident in the House for Defence Question Time.
How do I address you, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman (Dr. Michael Clark): I am just discussing that very point, Mr. Howarth. I think that it would be correct if you called me Dr. Clark.
Mr. Howarth: I am delighted to be guided by you, Dr. Clark. Now that I know how properly to address you, I shall continue.
For an hon. Member who, like me, was elected to the House in 1983, rested between engagements—between 1992–97—and returned to the House in 1997, to the most privileged seat to which I could ever aspire, Aldershot, home of the British Army and birthplace of British aviation—I think that I am a round peg in a round hole—one of the most astonishing and fascinating features of being in the House is to see how the Labour party has changed.
Dr. Clark, you will remember that, when you and I were first elected to the House, ranged against us were all those Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament people, beating swords into ploughshares. What are we faced with today? We are faced with one Labour Member after another standing up and demanding that the Government buy bigger and better weapons, preferably from their own constituency.
Mrs. Browning: I totally agree with the point that my hon. Friend has just made. However, perhaps he will add a caveat—that among the Labour Members of the European Parliament, perhaps in the person, for example, of Mrs. Glenys Kinnock, we hear the old Labour-CND message still coming through.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. I gather that the Labour Members of the European Parliament are part of what is called the Socialist group. That word has been expunged from the new Labour dictionary, so what they do is probably a source of discomfort to the Prime Minister and the other promoters of new Labour. I suspect that you will call me out of order, Dr. Clark, if I carry on with that argument.
There has been a fascinating change in this country. There is a consensus on the importance of defence and defence exports. There are three reasons why defence exports are not just good for the United Kingdom, but essential. Those reasons go beyond the desire to protect 400,000 jobs in the UK. I made that point to the hon. Member for Twickenham because I felt that he was belittling the contribution of defence contracting to the United Kingdom's industrial base; but I am not in the business of giving subsidies to keep jobs in a particular sector. That would be inconsistent with my philosophy and that of my party over the past 20 years.
The first reason is that, without defence exports, we could not afford to buy domestically produced aeroplanes, missiles, heavy artillery and similar equipment, because there would be no economies of scale. I shall illustrate that with one example. As the country wrangled over what was going to succeed the Tornado combat aircraft—we now know that it is to be the Eurofighter—there was serious concern at British Aerospace, because the production run was coming to an end with nothing to put in its place. What happened? The Al-Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia provided a large enough order to keep the production line open. Saudi Arabia then made an attrition buy—a technical expression in the trade for replacing lost aircraft that crash, fall out of the sky or are shot down—of a further 12 Tornado aircraft. That kept the production line going until the Eurofighter—or the Typhoon, as we now call it, which is a much better name—came on stream.
If we had simply relied on domestic demand for Tornado aircraft, the unit cost would have been prohibitive. The Public Accounts Committee would have said that it was ridiculous and that we should have bought some other aircraft off the shelf, such as the F 16 from the United States. That would have left us dependent on the United States for the supply of critical equipment and would have cut us off from the supply of the next generation of combat aircraft. As a result of the defence export services provided by the Ministry of Defence and the fantastic effort of the Government—even the Foreign Office—and industry coming together in concerted UK activity, we were able to sell Tornado aircraft to Saudi Arabia, bringing the unit costs down and keeping us in the business of producing high-tech combat aircraft.
The second reason why defence exports are essential is that they help our foreign policy objectives. Supplying our friends with military equipment is a practical way of demonstrating our support. That is not a euphemism for propping up corrupt regimes. Few countries can match
190WH
our commitment to liberty, our devotion to democracy and our belief in fair play. Few countries play cricket and even fewer play cricket like we do, unfortunately. Other countries fall short of the standards that we set.
Defence exports help us to influence events in critical parts of the world. This Government, like their Conservative predecessors, are keen to demonstrate Britain's influence in the world. The Prime Minister is extraordinarily keen to play soldiers around the world. I do not object to the principle of that, although I have some doubt about his motives. By supporting defence exports, we are able to make friends and influence events around the world. Some of the key countries to which we export, such as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, are very good allies of the United Kingdom. Defence exports help to strengthen those ties.
The third reason is that defence exports enable us to exert further influence. If we supply critical defence equipment to a country where the Government change and the new regime behaves unacceptably, those exports give us a hold over them. I am astonished that, while the Foreign Secretary trumpets an ethical foreign policy, when he had the chance to influence events in Indonesia and Zimbabwe, he signally failed to do so. There has been a huge amount of wringing of hands over Indonesia, but the Foreign Secretary has allowed the Hawk contract to go ahead. In my view, last year was the time to say, "No more." That would have enabled us to exercise influence, but the Government chose not to do so.
It is appalling that the Government will continue to supply Hawk parts to Zimbabwe—a country that, in the league table of corruption and incompetence, must surely be if not at the top then at least in the top 10. The idea that we have an obligation to continue to supply spare parts to the disgustingly corrupt and incompetent Mugabe is profoundly offensive. The Government should have said, "If you go ahead and nationalise the land of white farmers in your country, do not expect a single spark plug for any of your Hawk aircraft, 'cos we ain't gonna supply it. Talk some common sense and run your country in a proper fashion and we will resume the supply."
Dr. Howells: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about Zimbabwe. I was there recently and saw the appalling politically motivated spiral of decline in a country run largely by incompetent people. However, I have figures showing that between 1987 and 1994 the previous Government supplied Zimbabwe with £61,584,983 of defence of equipment. Did the Conservatives see the decline coming, or was the Government of Zimbabwe okay in those days?
Mr. Howarth: I shall probably surprise the Minister by saying that I would not have done that had I been a Minister, but, as he probably knows, I have a slightly different view of Zimbabwe. I think that it should still be called Rhodesia. I find it ironic that people should complain about the current system there or make excuses for Mugabe when some of us remember the days

191WH
when it was properly run. In those days, there was freedom for those who were law-abiding and the country was prosperous.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I think I know what the hon. Lady is about to say.
Dr. Tonge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does. Some time ago, during a debate on Sudan, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) said that it used to be a great country with "the blues ruling the blacks". Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should take back all the old British empire countries and run them directly from London? Would that please the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady poses an interesting question. To be quite candid, the answer is, in part, yes. It is a complete absurdity for us to imagine that we can continue in the present fashion, where corrupt and incompetent dictatorships around Africa continue ruining the lives of their people and demanding money from the international community, from agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and from us. However, that is a subject for another debate.
I shall conclude, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has some important remarks to make. I have given three reasons why it is absolutely essential that we recognise the role of defence exports. It is a most honourable profession that greatly benefits the British people, British industry and the countries that we support.
In regard to the Al-Yamamah contract, having been the parliamentary private secretary to Baroness Thatcher, I do not think that people recognise just what a fantastic deal that was. The personal chemistry between the noble Lady and King Fand of Saudi Arabia was probably responsible for securing more jobs than any other contract in the history of these islands.
In answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham, who based his remarks principally on the role of ECGD, I would be most reluctant to withdraw from the British defence industry the availability of ECGD support. It would make us totally uncompetitive overseas, so we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
I was amazed to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer trumpeting the announcement that 63 countries would be denied the availability of ECGD support for defence exports, when only one of them had ever benefited or was likely to benefit anyway. I found it extraordinarily—
Mrs. Browning: Bogus.
Mr. Howarth: Exactly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the debate. I am sure that he will agree that it is important for the United Kingdom to continue to support our defence industry, which not only generates jobs and wealth, but is a source of tremendous innovation and excitement.
192WH
10.14 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in introducing an Adjournment debate on this important subject. Last week, I tried to get a debate on arms exports and an ethical foreign policy, so I shall concentrate rather more on the ethics, which I consider to be an even more important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent and well-informed speech.
I was also interested in the speech by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I see the beginnings of an entirely new Conservative party policy. The shadow Cabinet has been reshuffled and now the hon. Gentleman is proposing not only that we pull out of Europe, but that we break our ties with the United States and re-form the British empire. I expect his next proposal will be that we send an expeditionary force to Washington.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. How on earth can she make those assertions on the basis of what I said? I made no suggestion that we should cut ourselves off from the United States—far from it. I made no remarks about withdrawing from Europe or re-establishing the British empire. I simply said that one or two countries could well benefit from the expertise that we used to give them and under which they flourished.
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman must realise that I have every right to extrapolate his ideas and develop them.
The Chairman: Order. This is not a debate about empire. Will hon. Members please get back to the subject in hand.
Dr. Tonge: I apologise, Dr. Clark. I could not resist making that point.
I have do not have the background to speak on the economic arguments in relation to the ECGD and arms exports: my profession is the medical profession, which has been severely humbled in recent days. My only connection with the subject is that, until a few years ago, there was a big British Aerospace factory—which used to be the old Hawker factory—in the Richmond Park constituency. So my interest is not a current one.
I understand the economic argument that has been made for arms exports and the arms industry. I am not a pacifist; I do not want to stop arms exports. I understand that they are part of the real world. However, I question some of them—especially those that are supported by export credit guarantees—that involve countries whose economies may be in a parlous state or unstable. Suppose that the export credit guarantees are never paid off and the arms sales result in an extremely expensive war—they did in the case of Iraq—and a military campaign to which we have to contribute; and suppose that our Government have to provide humanitarian aid and then development aid to rebuild a country that has been destroyed by war. In such cases I question the economic arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Aldershot. They may be good in

193WH
the very short term, but ultimately it seems to me a crazy policy which places a heavy burden on the British taxpayer.
Let us consider the jobs argument. Of course there would be job losses if the arms industry contracted, but if we cut out only the part of the industry that supplies arms under export credit guarantees, it might not affect such a large proportion of total arms exports. People who work in the arms industry are generally highly qualified and employable. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people change jobs or retrain, so I do not find the jobs argument insurmountable.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady will know that I represent a seat in Devon and that military issues are of great importance in the south-west. I remind her that for many years I have listened to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has Westland Helicopters in his constituency. The helicopters produced there are used both for peaceful and for military purposes. The right hon. Gentleman advocated a rather different view of job losses at Westland and in the west country.
Dr. Tonge: So would many Members with arms manufacturers in their constituencies, but, at some point, we shall have to bite the bullet. People in many industries have to consider retraining. One example is the farming industry, on which the hon. Lady used to speak on behalf of her party. I do not see why the arms industry should be immune. I would also remind her that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is no longer our party leader and is quite entitled to express his opinion.
The other argument advanced by the hon. Member for Aldershot—the old adage that if we do not do it, someone else will—was ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. Sometimes, we must take a lead on these issues. We took a lead on debt. Indeed, the previous Conservative Government took a lead on debt, which was followed up by the Labour Government. Both British Governments in recent years have spoken and acted honourably on debt. Why can we not do the same in relation to the arms trade? Why can we not take the lead? No wonder this country does not know where it is going if we cannot make a stand occasionally.
The Government have made some fine attempts to give moral leadership. I was in the Locarno room—a wonderful place—in the summer of 1997, and found it difficult to control my emotions as the Foreign Secretary described his new foreign policy with its ethical dimension. He told us how the world would be changed and that Britain would be a good boy after all.
On many occasions, I have heard how passionately the Secretary of State for International Development feels about the prevention of conflict and about the need to restrict arms sales to countries which are unstable or are in need of development. I suspect that she is frequently overruled.
Dr. Howells: As the Minister who has to sign off all the arms export deals that we send out—and I have been in this job since a year ago last July—I point out to the hon. Lady that there has never been one on which we have not consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
194WH
and the Department for International Development. We have done that for every export and have never received one—
Dr. Tonge indicated dissent.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but I am the guy who has to sign off those exports. Never once have we received from the DFID or the FCO an objection to anything that we have signed.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I was really referring to the annual report on arms sales. During the last Session, I was a member of the Select Committee that reviewed the annual report. I think that some arms exports to Eritrea were refused by the DFID, but that was overruled by the Department of Trade and Industry—or whoever it was. The Minister is not correct. Decisions are overruled. Indeed, when the annual report on arms exports is produced, the Secretary of State for International Development does not sign that report as other Ministers do, even though she is a member of the Government.
Dr. Howells: I have learned much since I entered the Government about how difficult and complicated government is. Surely, the hon. Lady must realise that, as the DTI is responsible for sponsoring exports, one Minister has to sign them off. There cannot be an arrangement whereby every Minister in every Department signs off every export contract. That would be nonsense. Surely the hon. Lady has enough experience to understand that.
Dr. Tonge: I do indeed understand the point, but in the context of the Government's declaration that they would have a foreign policy with an ethical dimension, and that they would adhere to the UK and the EU code of conduct on arms sales. I shall explain how they have not done so. I stick to my guns: whichever Minister signs off the sales, he or she should take into consideration the opinion of the Department that is concerned with development and the prevention of conflict. If that is not done, there will be more trouble for this country and more expenditure in the long term.
Dr. Howells rose—
Dr. Tonge: I shall not give way again, because I want to make progress.
I refer to the Government's response to the International Development Committee's report on conflict prevention. I was a member of the Committee. The report included the recommendation that
"the Government extend indefinitely its moratorium on the use of export credits for unproductive expenditure and urge the Government to exert further pressure for the adoption internationally of such a commitment."
The Government responded rather cryptically:
"The Government welcomes the Committee's support for the Mauritius Mandate"—
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred.
"The Government remains committed to limiting our export credits to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries"—

195WH
the hon. Member for Aldershot pointed out that that was no great matter—
"to those for productive expenditure."
The Government were not upholding the foreign policy with an ethical dimension about which we had heard so much. They were not even upholding the commitment not to sell arms to countries where there was an identifiable risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression or for aggression against another country. I shall return to that matter later in my speech.
This foreign policy has been trampled over by the Government's response to arms exports—whether or not they are supported by export credit guarantees. The Government have recently stated that they would not resume the sale of arms to Pakistan—everyone agrees that Pakistan is extremely unstable and no one knows how matters in that country will progress—but they will consider each sale case by case. They get themselves out of the hoop in that way.
As we have already heard, the decision has been taken to resume selling arms to Indonesia, when that country is subject to huge internal upheavals. We have not yet sorted out East Timor; East Timorese refugees are still being held in West Timor and are not being allowed to return home. All that is happening, and even though the Indonesians have not paid off previous export credits, we are selling them more equipment—presumably backed by more export credits.
Three quarters of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are engaged in armed conflict, or are confronted by a significant threat from armed groups. Arms exports to the region almost doubled last year. Excluding South Africa, spending on arms in sub-Saharan Africa increased by 14 per cent., at a time when the region's economic growth rose by less than 1 per cent. in real terms.
There are at least 11,000 Zimbabwean troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and the President of Congo are all fighting a war against Rwanda, Uganda and the Congolese rebels. There is a terrible mess in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Zimbabwe is involved in it.
The estimated cost of the war for Zimbabwe is £1 million a day. That is in a country whose economic situation is regarded as extremely serious. The country is heavily in debt. There are record levels of unemployment; the inflation rate is 57 per cent; and an AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy to less than 50 years. Despite all that, we are selling arms to Zimbabwe. As the hon. Member for Aldershot said, what a foolish decision that was.
Furthermore, to return to the Minister's point, those sales are not compatible with the European Union code of conduct to which we have signed up. Both in criterion 4 and criterion 8—I carefully dug them out last night—we fail vis-a-vis Zimbabwe. We are not obeying the code of conduct by resuming arms sales to that country. Whither, then, our ethical foreign policy?
When are the Government going to regain the moral leadership of which we had such high hopes early in this Parliament, for goodness sake? Are we to go on
196WH
indefinitely feeding wars and human misery? Will that new foreign policy with an ethical dimension never be reinstated?
One of the researchers reminded me of some lines from Milton's "Paradise Lost":
"So here the Archangel paused,
Betwixt a world destroyed and a world restored."
I want to see a world restored for the sake of my children and my grandchildren. I feel strongly about that. I am not a pacifist, but I want the world restored. To do that, we must bring back the ethical dimension that the Government have lost. We can make a start by stopping the subsidy on arms exports.
10.30 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: May I say how pleased I am to contribute, on behalf of the Conservative party, to this debate? Clearly, matters have been raised over which we must accept that there is a philosophical divide. There is a difference between the views of the Liberal Democrat speakers and those that I shall set out and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). Quite where the Minister stands remains to be seen, but I shall leave him to make his case.
On 27 July 1997, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
"The Government is committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry, which is a strategic part of our industrial base, as well as of our defence effort."
Those sentiments were also underlined in the strategic defence review, which said:
"The British defence industry is outstandingly successful and a vital national asset."
In the recent defence White Paper, the Government committed themselves to
"ensuring the survival of a successful British defence industry".
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is clearly disappointed with the Labour Government. I do not want to say too much about that because it is for the Minister to respond to her disappointment. However, from the statements that I have quoted, the Government appear genuinely to want to support our arms industry. They realise the economic and strategic importance of defence manufacture in this country, and we wholeheartedly agree with them on that. However, I agree with the hon. Lady in that those statements do not relate to statements made elsewhere about a so-called ethical foreign policy, particularly as it relates to arms. I shall come to that point shortly.
The defence industry is important. I listened carefully to the hon. Lady when she said that she was not a pacifist. However, if her argument were taken to its logical conclusion, it would surely lead not just to the withdrawal of Government financial support through export credit guarantees, but to this country's not supplying arms at all. Who finances arms sales is an academic issue if one's philosophical position is that it is bad to supply arms to certain countries or to supply certain types of arms.
Dr. Tonge: On a point of explanation, I made no suggestion that we could not sell arms to countries such as our fellow members of the European Union or to

197WH
stable countries in the rest of the world. My point was that we should adhere to the European code of conduct on arms sales and not sell arms to unstable countries or when they could be used for aggression or internal repression.
Mrs. Browning: The principle of where the arms are sold must be taken into account and it is, indeed, taken into account through the licensing process. However, the hon. Lady will recall, as I do only too well, that, at times of conflict in our own lifetimes, we have sold arms to some of our nearest and dearest neighbours only to find them used against us. Her proposition is no guarantee that there would not be what she would regard as unfortunate recycling or that we would not be the target of our own bullets.
As a percentage of gross domestic product, the United Kingdom has the world's second largest defence industrial base, employing—and this is important—355,000 people, who make up approximately 10 per cent. of the UK's manufacturing and industrial work force. That translates as 11 per cent. of the country's industrial and manufacturing output, equating to 50 per cent. of the aerospace and shipbuilding manufacturing that takes place in the UK and 40 per cent. of the electronics industry.
I declare a constituency interest. Electronics companies in my constituency supply the defence sector and they are at the cutting edge of technology. I have had no hesitation in supporting the work that they do and their attempts to bid for contracts. I have given them my full support.
The primary function of the defence industry is to supply military equipment to the UK armed forces. Problems with supply of essential war material during the Falklands and the Gulf wars have underlined the importance of an adequate domestic defence industrial base. However, the industry cannot be sustained by Ministry of Defence procurement alone; exports are essential to its survival. In recent years, defence exports have been a British success story, with the UK regularly taking more than 20 per cent. of the world defence export market. Defence exports reduce the MOD's procurement costs by allowing longer production runs and lower unit costs.
At this stage, I wish to point out that Members who are interested in defence matters are concerned at reports about the standard of equipment that has been supplied to our armed forces. Cost is a factor, but the quality of what we provide to our armed forces is of primary importance.
The commercial exploitation levy adds between £350 million and £400 million to the defence budget. More importantly, a third—approximately 130,000—of defence industry jobs depend on exports, with more than one third of production going abroad.
It has been alleged that the defence industry receives an unfair preference when it comes to ECGD cover. The most often cited figure is the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in an intervention. The 1998–99 figures shows defence cover at more than half the total of ECGD funding for that year. That figure, as we know, was the result of the Asian financial crisis and it is important that it does not distort the figures for previous and subsequent years in which
198WH
cover dropped to as low as 13 per cent. The average figure for defence cover in the period 1988–89 to 1998–99 is just under 28 per cent. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry concluded that there is
"no evidence to indicate that ECGD is biased towards defence-related exports".
Other countries provide far greater assistance for their defence industries. Both France and Germany provide direct financial assistance to their defence companies and both countries are far more generous when it comes to export cover. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was right to mention the United States. Defence procurement and the provision for defence manufacture in the United States is important and we must bear in mind the huge global market in second-hand defence equipment that comes from the United States. In itself, that has an effect on the price of defence procurement around the world. However, the United States helps its exporters with long-term subsidised loans as part of the foreign military sales scheme.
Dr. Cable: Is the hon. Lady advocating that we try to match such contributions or does she agree with her parliamentary colleague who was the special adviser to the previous Prime Minister and who said:
"It is illogical to indulge in a competition to give away our own exports through an auction of subsidies … companies should reduce costs and make themselves competitive, not rely on state aids."
Does the hon. Lady agree with that?
Mrs. Browning: Given my earlier remarks about the primary importance of defence manufacture to underpin our domestic requirements, if taxpayers' money has to be used to underwrite the guarantees through the ECGD, I thoroughly support its use. There is no doubt about that. We did that in government and we shall continue to support its use. We must consider the sector and its strategic importance to the UK's military and defence provision.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The hon. Lady referred to what happened under the previous Government, but am I not correct in thinking that, in 1997, the bad debts to the ECGD included military support that had been given to China, Indonesia, Iraq and Nigeria, which at the time was under a dictatorship? When she says that she is happy for taxpayers' money to subsidise the defence industry, does she not feel at all uncomfortable with those examples?
Mrs. Browning: No, I do not. Although I do not have to hand detailed information about every one of those countries, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman for the simple reason that, under the process by which ECGD cover is given, at the time when the cover is underwritten and signed off as the Minister described, every grant is considered on its merits and the balance of risk. The nature of the scheme means that there will be times when that risk is such that the Government have to step in. That is a matter of balance.

199WH
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the third report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which covers that matter in detail. It is not over-critical of the process.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is not the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) that he has selectively listed countries that have at some time been in default, whereas many other countries that have been beneficiaries of defence exports for which ECGD credit has been available have continued to honour their obligation, and their premiums are helping to defray the cost of meeting the credits on those countries that are defaulting?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend describes the process correctly. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is a philosophical divide. If one is opposed per se to public money underwriting or providing a safety net for such transactions, clearly one will not find any formula under which those transactions are acceptable. That is what divides us in the Chamber today.
Mr. Savidge: I am not talking about being opposed per se to subsidising our defence industry. However, many people in this country might feel slightly unhappy if they knew, for example, that we had subsidised Saddam Hussein's military build-up. That is why I chose the countries that I mentioned in my intervention. I could have listed other countries, and many people in Britain would be disturbed to find that taxpayers' money was being used to subsidise the build-up of those countries' military might.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will know the history of the situation as well as anyone else in the Chamber. When those arms were sold, the political situation, particularly between Iraq and Iran, was very different from the present situation. He cannot expect any Government, of whatever political persuasion, to second-guess what might happen several years later as a result of a change in political leadership or situation.
Dr. Howells: In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), I have been reliably informed—I hope this helps the hon. Lady—that there never was any ECGD cover for defence business in China or Iraq.
Mrs. Browning: I am most grateful to the Minister. We could make a very good team on this subject, and I offer him my services unreservedly in case he ever needs to call on me as a running mate in future debates on the matter.
Export sales have helped the UK to retain essential capabilities at a time of a huge defence budget reduction and a reduction in the defence equipment market overall. The ECGD's work to underpin strategic industries in this country is extremely important.
It has been argued that the ECGD is not the right organisation to evaluate the development or ethical implications of defence exports. It does not have the
200WH
expertise or the staff to carry out the necessary background research. That was recognised by the International Development Committee, which said:
"Criticisms of arms exports to particular countries and of the application of human rights criteria are being considered in detail"—
in the course of its inquiry. It continued:
"ECGD should not have to second-guess or duplicate the system for the scrutiny of export licence applications."
We agree with that. Legitimate ethical and other matters should be considered in the scrutiny of licence applications, and they are not the primary responsibility of the ECGD.
The Conservative party is committed to a strong defence industry. We are conscious of the need to consider the impact of defence exports, particularly in the developing world, but such consideration can best be done through the licensing process, not through the deliberations of the ECGD.
The debate overall has clearly concerned a division between the Liberal Democrats and their friends in the Cabinet. I say to the Minister that, although the debate has clearly arisen from a philosophical divide, we, too, are concerned about the way in which the ECGD operates within the DTI.
I draw the Minister's attention to two points from the third report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It says:
"There is some evidence of a lack of joined-up thinking between ECGD and parts of the DTI."
I do not know when the Minister intends formally to respond to the report. The report also states:
"One ex-underwriter stated that 'ECGD services are little understood within DTI and FCO'".
Those are criticisms by a Committee of the House, which has studied the matter in great detail. We want the ECGD to work effectively and to continue to underwrite risk, particularly in this important sector.
I should be grateful if the Minister, in his concluding remarks, assured us that those matters are being addressed and gave us a little more detail about how he evaluates the views of the Ministry of Defence and his Department in supporting our defence industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and others have outlined what seem to be bogus remarks from the Foreign Office about the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate. We have heard interesting observations. I shall try in the few minutes left to answer some of the major questions, but first I must underscore the points made by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about the importance of the sector.
As someone who has lived through the death of a large industry—the coal industry—I know that such transformations are extremely difficult. A decade and a half later, we are still suffering the problems of transition. There is also a read-across, which no one has mentioned; for example, the ability to manufacture advanced aircraft has a read-across to civil aircraft.

201WH
I do not know whether the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) are opposed to the production of civil aircraft. I do not know whether the Greens have leaned on them to that extent, or whether they have modified their policy. I should like to hear about that.
There has always been a read-across between industries. That is clear when one considers the great aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing and, in this country, British Aerospace. The Government are not about to surrender that industry, and we do not need to.
I want to clear up a couple of important points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park in her passionate plea. No hon. Member, whether Liberal, Labour or anything else, has a monopoly on feeling passionate about the world being reconstructed rather than destroyed. I have young children, and I do not want them, or anyone else's children, to go through another war. The very notion that the Government's policy is contributing to an escalation of conflict in the world flies in the face of events.
I do not know who has been spinning against the DTI over recent months, but it irks badly. I notify all Departments of all licence applications that I receive. If those Departments want to comment on them, they can do so. I take no decision on any contract unless the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence have seen it. If the Department for International Development also wishes to comment on any licence application, it can do so.
It is untrue, for example, that DFID's advice on Eritrea licences was overruled. In the Government's response to the International Development Committee report, it is clearly stated that DFID's advice was not overruled on the cases identified by the Committee. I reinforce that point. The hon. Member for Richmond Park did not want to give way to me on that point, which was interesting. Perhaps she does not want the facts to get in the way of good rhetoric and a passionate story. If I were signing off deals that clearly breached human rights issues, and so on, I would find it very difficult to live in my house. My wife would know about it very quickly; the hon. Lady is not the only one to feel such passion.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development have never had reservations or objected to the granting of a licence that the DTI has then overruled?
Dr. Howells: If there are disagreements between Departments on any licence application, the matter goes to ministerial level and stays there until there is agreement. That is the way in which such matters ought to be sorted out: it is joined-up government and takes account of all the difficult issues concerning present, likely and marginal conflicts that are awkward to judge. The hon. Lady should have the good grace to understand that. She shakes her head, but clearly does not want to hear the truth. Very often, as politicians, we do not want to hear the truth, but I have just given it to this Chamber. DFID's advice is never ignored. I do not know who has been spreading the word that it has. I thought that it was perhaps from our own ranks, but it might be from the Liberal Democrats.
202WH
We have heard a great deal about the burden that the ECGD places on the taxpayer and the ways in which it is having to carry much of the finance that is made available to cover exports. That is not our reading of the situation. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, there is a break-even clause. In fact, we expect ECGD to do a good deal more than break even.
I turn to the basis of the hon. Gentleman's case: the study at York university. The study was based on information that was several years out of date; made some heroic assumptions; averaged ECGD claims and assumed that defence business was in proportion, country by country, to civil business—but it was not. Past major claims markets, such as Nigeria, Poland and Brazil, involved very little—none in the case of Poland—defence business. Furthermore, in being so out of date, the study failed, in using the figure of £239 million, to take account of either the £1.6 billion received by ECGD in recoveries over the past three years or its vastly improved performance over the best part of the past decade. That is a very important point.
Let me now address the question whether ECGD gives defence business priority over other businesses. The decision on whether ECGD provides cover to a country is based on a risk assessment. If that assessment is favourable, cover is available on a first come, first served basis to all eligible exports, whether civil or defence. There have been no instances of defence business crowding out civil business. That point must be made, and clearly.
Two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that ECGD cover should be available only to 41 heavily indebted poor countries—HIPCs, as I learned last night—for exports that support their economic and social recovery and development. On 11 January, he announced the extension of the productive expenditure criteria—a wonderful phrase—to a further 22 countries. The UK's unilateral stance on the policy has not to date been followed. The hon. Member for Richmond Park should take that into account as well. She paid some tribute to it, but far from enough.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister is extraordinarily brave to deal with this subject. What prospect has the UK ever had of selling arms to Vanuatu?
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; he can have a poke at that one. Let me give him another. One of the countries on the initial HIPC list that I saw last night is Vietnam. That country very badly needs some arms to protect its exports and imports from pirates, gun-runners and smugglers. Are we to deny Vietnam exports? Of course we cannot. The country is on the list; the system is complicated: it is not black and white, as the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Twickenham implied it was.
I am afraid that such real situations occur all too often in this world. I am not about to refuse to sign off such an agreement if it means that heroin will pour into this country from places such as Vietnam because it has been denied the ability to defend its trade, towns, estuaries and rivers from smugglers and pirates.
In the three remaining minutes, I shall turn to the two circumstances in which ECGD cover is denied. Under UK policy, those circumstances are, first, where it is

203WH
clear that exports of particular goods should not be made to a country, and, secondly, where a country is assessed as unlikely to be able to pay. Any extension of those categories risks imposing our own views on other sovereign nations—an important point that nobody has mentioned in today's debate. Export credits are not aid but commercial loans that we expect to be paid in full and on time. It is not right for us, as a rich and powerful nation which is able to defend itself, to tell others who have a right to self-defence and security and can afford to pay that they cannot spend their money on those things.
Why does the ECGD rely so heavily on export licensing? If the UK decides that certain goods should not be exported to a country, the policy is enacted through the export licensing scheme. The presence of a valid export licence is a condition of ECGD cover. If a licence has been granted, the Government have no objection to the export and there is no reason for ECGD cover to be withheld.
I shall finish on the following point because I know that the next debate is about to begin. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set up a review last year into the ECGD's mission status. It is expected to be concluded around Easter. I shall ensure that the views that have been expressed in this debate—a very useful debate—are put to that review. I do not wish to prejudge its outcome. I very much hope that hon. Members present will contribute to it because it is valuable and timely.
10.59 am
Sitting suspended.

European Union Development Fund
11 am
On resuming—
Mr. Tony Worthington: This debate is timely, for two reasons. First, we now know the new structure for development within the European Commission: the former Danish Development Minister, Poul Nielson, is, by and large, the Development Commissioner for the European Union. In theory, that is a great improvement on the previous structure, whereby all sorts of Commissioners appeared to have responsibility for development in various parts of the world. The new arrangement should not only ensure consistency in the implementation of development policy in different parts of the world, but make it easier to tackle the issue of coherence between development policies and other community policies such as those on trade, agriculture and foreign policy.
However, the role of the External Affairs Commissioner, Chris Patten, needs to be explained. It is reassuring that he is well known to the House and that he has a development background in this country; but the confusion of external affairs and development has held back development, both in this country—under the previous structure whereby the Overseas Development Administration was part of the Foreign Office—and in Europe. Let me give an example. In May 1999, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Commission—that is, every part of the EU structure—reached agreement on the European Community budget. However, the agreement on the external budget did not acknowledge the EU commitment to tackle poverty in developing countries, even though that is prioritised in the EU's development co-operation objectives set out in the Maastricht treaty.
The second reason why the debate is timely is the successful conclusion of negotiations on the Lomé convention. I believe that this is the first opportunity that the Minister will have had to address hon. Members since the successful conclusion of the renegotiated Lomé agreement; I congratulate him on his role in that respect. I hope that he will take this opportunity to point out the gains to be derived by developing countries from Lomé. It is a great relief that Lomé did not become caught up in the Seattle debacle, although, at some stage, Lomé will have to be superseded by an arrangement that is World Trade Organisation-compliant. It is interesting to note the different scales of the publicity given to the successful conclusion of the Lomé negotiation and that given to events in Seattle.
The importance of the debate arises from the fact that 30 per cent. of our own aid money—British aid—is distributed by Europe; that figure has increased from 12 per cent. in 1980. The proportion of aid for which the EU is responsible has been rising all over Europe as the amount of aid has fallen. Because, by international treaty, we are pledged to give a certain amount to Europe and because Europe has been so inefficient in spending effectively, the fall in the sums devoted to aid—not in this country, but elsewhere—has been even more catastrophic. Sixty per cent. of development assistance in the world is given by the European Union, either collectively or by nation states. There is not the slightest

205WH
chance of the world community meeting its ambitious anti-poverty targets—on reducing poverty and establishing universal primary education and universal access to reproductive health services—by 2015, unless Europe gets its act together. Up to now, the record has been very unsatisfactory and has cheated the poorest people in the world.
European Union development funding has been criticised for a multitude of reasons. First, there is no sense of co-ordination: there are multiple outlets for development or external assistance. Will that now stop? Secondly, there is confusion between development purposes and external affairs: EU activity has not been focused on poverty, and that trend has increased in recent years. Thirdly, there are huge delays between commitment of expenditure and its disbursement. If people are told that they have the money, they are well advised not to hold their breath while they wait for it; if they do, they might pass on before they receive it. That is not satisfactory.
Fourthly, there has been a substantial underspend, so that the large falls in aid that have occurred in recent years—not in this country—are made even worse by the sums committed not being spent.
Fifthly, the Commission and its staff have lacked the capacity or skills to disburse large sums of money, but have refused to decentralise to local offices. According to ActionAid, the European Union has only two gender experts and one education expert. How on earth can they deal efficiently with hundreds of projects? All that adds up to gross inefficiency, a lack of strategic vision, and a rising demand to return aid to nation states if matters do not improve. If matters do improve, there is a case for a large role for the EU. If European aid were administered effectively, everyone could gain.
Let me explore each of the issues that I have listed. What is the thinking behind the new European Union structure and what commitments has the new Commissioner given to improvement in terms of the focus on poverty? Development assistance is not skewed to the poorest countries, and that trend has been worsening. The most recent figures indicate that, leaving aside the special circumstances of the former Yugoslavia, the countries that receive most European aid are countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan. Those are Mediterranean middle-income countries, not the poorest countries in the world; aid to sub-Saharan Africa barely registers.
There appears to be a chronic underfunding of Asia—the region in which the highest numbers of the poorest people live: 73 per cent. of the world's poorest people live in Asia. However, the European Union does not have a spending package spread over several years for Asia, unlike its programme for the countries covered by the Meda programme—measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership—or for sub-Saharan Africa. Instead, the EU budget for Asia is a yearly budget, which becomes squeezed.
What can the Minister tell us about the Meda programme for the Mediterranean and middle east, which ought to be reduced if the EU development budget is to be poverty focused? That programme also ought to be reduced because it underspends and the resources could be used elsewhere: in 1997, only
206WH
64 per cent. of allocated Meda funds were spent. I understand that Meda is being renegotiated and that a conclusion will be reached within the next few months. What stance are the British Government and other Governments taking on that failure to focus on the poorest countries in the world and on the inefficiency of the Meda programme?
What steps are being taken to make a much clearer division between development assistance and external assistance? That is a serious issue. The UK and the EU vote funds that are intended to contribute to the achievement of international targets on cutting poverty. That money should be spent on the poorest people in the poorest countries; unfortunately, much of it has been used for other political purposes. Some of those purposes have worthy goals on which money should be spent, but they should not be called development purposes. Let me quote a couple of examples. It is right that those countries that want to join the EU should be helped to adjust. Large funds have been made available through the Phare programme of Community aid for central and eastern European countries, and through the Tacis technical assistance programme for independent states of the former Soviet Union and Mongolia. Those countries trying to adjust their agriculture should be assisted through agriculture funds, which form the largest part by far of the EU budget. The money that we allocate to development should not be used for those purposes.
Similarly, in the case of the Meda budget, money is used to reduce immigration from the Mediterranean countries into the EU. That is understandable from the viewpoint of countries in southern Europe, but, again, it is not a development priority—it is a political goal.
What assurances can my hon. Friend the Minister give that, under the new structure, there will be a more scrupulous definition of development? I have no doubt that the importance of development and the quality of aid have been enhanced since the Department for International Development was established and escaped from the preoccupations of the Foreign Office. We should seek to achieve the same kind of independence in Europe.
Over the years, a surprisingly small amount of European Union aid has been allocated to social sectors such as health and education. Rising sums have been allocated within the EC, but we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that that has meant increased commitment to development for the poorest people in the poorest countries, both because of the underspending on those programmes—allocated resources budgeted by the member states but not used in that year by the Commission have led to a loss of resources for overseas development assistance amounting to 3 billion ecus per year—and because of the diversion of those funds to political funding, rather than development funding.
Although it is quality that matters, I welcome the assurance of the Commissioner that the next European development fund will allocate more to health care and that, as was stated in a letter to the Danish family planning association, there is likely to be an increased role for the European Union in the matters of reproductive health and population aspects of the third world. However, despite changes in policy rhetoric, more than 60 per cent. of Commission development

207WH
funding is still spent on infrastructure projects—projects that may well be attractive to EU countries because of the money that they bring to European firms.
There are further important issues. I noted in the Lomé agreement negotiated by my hon. Friend the Minister that there were provisions to suspend development assistance where there was substantial corruption in the recipient country. That is a bold step forward and a welcome one. Can my hon. Friend give us more details?
Was there agreement within Lomé, and elsewhere in the EU, that there should be much more decentralisation of decision making to country offices, to end the appalling delays between the commitment of funds and their distribution? What progress is being made to end aid tying? I believe that there are substantial differences of opinion between member countries on this issue. Aid is given, with the specification that it must be spent on personnel or firms in the donor country.
At the ministerial summit meeting—presumably of the G8—in Okinawa, a move to untie aid is on the agenda. Will the EU agree that that should occur? Will we press for the untying of aid? Are we winning the struggle to ensure that aid is made more effective and that the needs of the recipients come first?
The EU development fund has tended to be project rather than strategy oriented. What steps are being taken to improve the quality of the work and the monitoring of that work? European development fund activities have tended not to be transparent, and not to involve the local community and civil society. What proposals are there for greater transparency and for capacity building and ownership to be at the centre of development?
I welcome the proposals that there should be short-term measures within Lomé to help countries whose revenues suddenly fall for reasons such as a collapse in commodity prices. That will be an improvement on the previous arrangements, such as Stabex—the stabilisation of export earnings. I particularly welcome the European Union commitments to providing duty free access to its markets to virtually all products from the least developed countries by 2005 at the latest. It is good that that will go ahead, despite the collapse of Seattle.
I should be grateful if the Minister would share his thoughts with us on how he sees Lomé gradually being integrated into the WTO world, as it must be, and if he would tell us more about European development funding and the changes that he helped to negotiate.
11.15 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has delivered a serious indictment, but he is dreaming an impossible dream if he believes that the situation can be resolved. If the past is used as a guide to the future, the prognosis is grim. I am surprised that he has not called for the repatriation to our own country of decision making about the overseas aid budget.
208WH
We are speaking of British taxpayers' money. When we in the House could decide on expenditure and hold Ministers to account, we had much greater control over that money and could ensure to a much greater extent that it was well targeted and well invested.
Mr. Worthington: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was less money every year?
Mr. Chope: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, what is important is not the amount of money, but its effectiveness. Throwing money at a problem is not the same as solving it. More money is going into aid through the European Union, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is not achieving the desired results.
I agree wholeheartedly with comments made by the Secretary of State, for International Development particularly in her speech on 28 July last year. She called for a number of changes. I shall not recite them all, but one of her most important points was that we need a more effective poverty focus in allocating resources. She pointed out that the share of European Community assistance going to the poorest countries had fallen from 75 per cent. in 1987 to 50 per cent. in 1997, and said that that was a scandal. I agree. She said that she found it impossible to reconcile EU policy statements on poverty.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and hope I that am not interrupting his train of thought. What is his opinion of the intervention by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)? I have a table produced by the Department for International Development, showing the share of the DFID budget channelled through the European Community between 1980 and 1997. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It was only in four years that the amount dropped. In the remaining years between 1980 and 1997, the amount of aid money going from Conservative Governments to the EC programme rose. Has my hon. Friend seen that table?
Mr. Chope: I have not, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to the attention of a wider audience. I, perhaps naively, took at face value the assertion made by the hon. Member for Clydebank. My hon. Friend has told me in no uncertain terms that I was at fault for doing that.
Mr. Worthington: So that we may draw the matter to the attention of an even wider audience, my point is that, when the Conservative party came into office, we were giving 0.51 per cent. of our gross domestic product to overseas development. When the Conservative party left office, that was down to 0.26 per cent. Because of the way in which the funds are disbursed, that would mean a larger amount going to Europe, but less going to the bilateral programme.
Mr. Chope: I recall that, when the Labour party was in opposition, it made all sorts of rash promises about increasing the proportion of gross domestic product that would be spent on aid. Those promises were never fulfilled to the people who were taken in by them.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I cannot refrain from putting in my oar. Does the hon. Gentleman agree

209WH
that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Government made significant progress towards the internationally agreed 0.7 per cent. of GDP for international aid? Many of our Scandinavian partners have achieved that target.
Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady speaks for the party whose commitments to spending taxpayers' money know no bounds. She enthusiastically represents a party that believes in much higher personal and corporate taxation. I disagree with her about that. The money that taxpayers already contribute to aid programmes should be spent more effectively.
In her speech last July, the Secretary of State said that the United Kingdom, with Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden, had asked the Commission to introduce proposals to increase the proportion of EU assistance to low-income countries every year from 2000 to 2006, reaching 70 per cent. by 2006. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he is satisfied that that objective will be achieved.
The Secretary of State made approximately 10 recommendations in her speech. Her final recommendation was for a formal, published annual report. She said:
"The Commission should prepare a detailed, comprehensive report each year providing analysis and information on the EC's role in international development and detailing progress against agreed targets. Virtually all development agencies, from the World Bank to bilaterals and NGOs already do this. The report should cover all the external assistance programmes, and how our trade, investment and wider policies are contributing to our development goals. I would like the new Commission to agree to publish the first such report next year."
The need for such a report is apparent, not least because of the European Court of Auditors' continuing evidence of money going astray and not being accounted for, and non-compliance with the Commission's procedures.
Hon. Members who had the chance to peep at the Official Journal for 3 December 1999, which details the Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1998, would have read a strong condemnation of the way in which the European Commission has run the programme and continues to fail to fulfil successive promises, made year after year, to try to put its house in order. My patience is running out. That is why I began my remarks by saying that we are dreaming an impossible dream if we believe that the Commission will provide an aid budget that is as effective as the budget that we could provide if it were under our control.
I shall not refer in detail to the range of criticisms and recommendations in the European Court of Auditors' report, but I shall provide a flavour of it. Paragraph 60 states:
"The Court has repeatedly drawn attention to the need for adequate accounting standards, policies and procedures to be established and consistently applied. The Commission continues not to apply consistently its accounting principles, which are explicitly mentioned in the financial statements and the accounting plans for the sixth, seventh and eighth EDFs."
What a serious indictment of the arrangements. That abuse has continued for years.
Paragraph 64 states:
"The accounts are qualified due to both the absence of a table of revenue and the incompleteness of the table of debts despite the disclosure of this information being defined in detail by the Financial Regulations"—
210WH
which are set out in a series of articles—
"and furthermore in respect of the errors arising from the issues dealt with in paragraphs 65 to 67."
Paragraph 85 states:
"For 1998, even though the situation had improved since 1997, there was a significant incidence of formal errors across most instruments of the EDF."
Paragraph 79 states:
"Contrary to Article 311(1) of the Lomé IV bis Convention, the Commission did not appoint the Chief Authorising Officer of the eighth EDF, who is responsible for managing the resources of the EDF, until July 1999. This leads to a situation where all actions taken in 1998 which were to be taken by the Chief Authorising Officer, as well as those to be taken by all persons acting under subdelegation of powers, are not covered by the formal authorisation."
If Ministers or civil servants came before the Public Accounts Committee and admitted such errors, they would be forced to resign. I have described an intolerable position. The Commission remains arrogant beyond all bounds and takes the European Court of Auditors' criticisms inappropriately lightly. I hope that the Minister will explain why he has confidence, which I do not share, that the Commission will put its house in order.
The Official Journal for 29 September contains a special Court of Auditors report, numbered 499. That report gives many specific examples of non-payment or misappropriation of money that was allocated to the development programme for needy countries. I commend all those who naively believe that there is a way forward with the European Commission to consider those examples.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's line. He says that he has no confidence in the new Commission. He will recall that the old Commission resigned and was replaced. Does his lack of confidence extend to Chris Patten, a former Conservative Development Minister, who was very effective?
Mr. Chope: I do not totally lack confidence in him. However, the burden of my comments is that the system is so riddled with corruption that even someone as able as my noble Friend Lord Patten will be unable to cope with it.
Mrs. Gillan: Neil Kinnock, who is vice-president of the Commission, recently said that there was a new sense of responsibility in Brussels. Does my hon. Friend believe that the reports to which he referred are embarrassing to the vice-president of the new Commission?
Mr. Chope: Certainly. In my enthusiasm for Chris Patten, my former right hon. Friend, I ennobled him. I am sure that he will be ennobled in due course. That will be warmly welcomed by hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and me, if not by Labour Members. I hope that my admiration for the new Commissioner is not in doubt, but I despair that even he, with all his talents, will not be able to change the system. Doing that is of paramount importance.

211WH
I hope that the Minister will explain why he retains such confidence in the system, and why he does not believe that it would be far better if provision for aid was repatriated to this country so that the House could control it.
11.29 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this debate. The issue is serious and deserves much more airing than it has received. However, the debate is developing into the usual scene—the Euro-sceptics descend, like a pack of hyenas on a corpse, as soon as anything bad is said about Europe. It is a sad little pack of hyenas this morning, but they are doing quite a good job. The matter is also of great interest and concern to the Europhiles, among whom I count myself. As a Liberal Democrat, I am a great supporter of the concept of the European Union.
Mrs. Galan: I think that the hon. Lady would agree that it would be wrong to keep quiet when one reads such headlines as "Brussels wastes £18 million in Ivory Coast aid fraud". Also, she should withdraw her remarks about those who are anti everything about Europe and her description of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and me as hyenas. I hope that she understands that it is our right and duty to speak out against fraud and wastage, in particular when it involves money that is to go to the poorest people.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I described the Euro-sceptics descending like a pack of hyenas upon the corpse. If she wants to include herself in that description, she can, but I did not necessarily intend her to be a part of it.
I said that the matter was also of great concern to Europhiles. I am concerned and worried about the issue. The hon. Lady knows, because she has heard the story before, although I am going to repeat it, that my introduction to the problem was as a member of European Standing Committee B when it discussed a Court of Auditors report on European Community development aid to South Africa. I think that the hon. Lady has a copy.
I remember telling the Committee that I had sat down the night before with a glass of wine to read the report, expecting to be asleep in five if not 10 minutes. I did not take it seriously. However, I became crosser and crosser as I progressed through the report, which was a ghastly tale of inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
Given my medical experience, I was particularly affected by the fact that, in 1994, a lot of money had been earmarked for an HIV-AIDS prevention project in South Africa, but, by 1996, none of that money had been touched—the project had not even got off the ground. Now, the HIV-AIDS infection rate in South Africa is 25 per cent. One wonders how many of the present cases were due to that two-year delay—I expect that it would be several thousand in that part of Africa. That was disgraceful. That is one small example and we have
212WH
heard many others from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has obviously done his homework well.
I have three questions. First, should we be spending one third of our aid budget on European aid, which goes to Europe to be spent with that from other European countries? The argument is always that it probably is a good idea because some projects are best done with small amounts of money by individual countries working alone, others are done much better by larger organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the African Development bank or whatever, but European countries pooling together can be much more effective for some other projects than one country working alone. Therefore, we must agree than an argument can be made for effective European aid and working together.
My second question, with which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie dealt well, is whether development aid is going to the right countries. The most up-to-date chart that I could find gives EC development aid by income group for the countries that receive European aid. In 1986–87, 50 per cent. of European aid went to the poorest countries but, by 1997–98, only 35 per cent. went to such countries. In 1997, Morocco was the biggest recipient of European aid, which had far more to do with French politics than with alleviating poverty.
The White Paper on the aims of development, which has never been debated but which was published by the Government in 1997—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has been."] I do not think that we have debated it, but the aim was to relieve poverty—the number of people living in poverty was to be halved by 2015. The European Union made a commitment to tackle poverty in the poorest countries, but it is not included in the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposal; nor is it in the financial outlook for 2000 to 2006. It seems to have been dropped altogether. However, I understand that that commitment to the relief of poverty was in the Maastricht treaty. I want to know where it has gone. The Minister must answer that question.
The Commission's agenda makes no reference to people living in extreme poverty, 75 per cent. of whom live in Asia; nor is there any reference to sub-Saharan Africa, which includes two thirds of the least developed countries. The emphasis has been switched to Europe's near neighbours: central and eastern Europe, the old Soviet bloc and the southern Mediterranean. We must try to bring the agenda back to the alleviation of poverty and the poorest people.
My third question is, is EU aid efficient? I do not need to reiterate that matter. I have seen an example in which it was wholly inefficient and the hon. Member for Christchurch gave us many other examples, so it clearly is not.
We should consider those questions and suggest solutions. First, we must have some sort of assurance that European aid has to be refocused on the least developed countries. The non-governmental organisations are suggesting that 70 per cent. of the financial perspectives—in the external actions budget—should go to the least developed countries. Our Government should be pushing for that.

213WH
Also, we must ensure that humanitarian emergency aid, which is always needed somewhere, is not reduced. We must keep up our contributions to such aid and it must be adequately protected in those financial perspectives to meet all the United Nations appeals for relief, which happen every year, year in and year out.
My third suggestion is that the three directorates in the European Union that all deal with development issues cause terrible confusion and delay. Problems are tossed between the directorates. They must be streamlined into one and I think I see the Minister assuring me that they have been.
Is monitoring and reporting back sufficiently frequent and accurate? Do we know where the money is going? The report by the Court of Auditors that was considered in the European Standing Committee that I mentioned—some of us were members of that Committee—was for 1986 to 1996, but we were discussing it three years later at the end of 1999. That is no good: that is not the efficient monitoring of projects. It is ridiculous. We need to monitor the situation on a yearly or even a six-monthly basis.
Furthermore, if aid is to be combined and the money is to come from all the countries in the European Union, one member country could be targeted as the lead country for a project. It could be financially responsible as well as responsible for setting up the project, taking it through and reporting back to the EU and member states on how it was progressing. I do not see any other way to manage projects efficiently. A key group of people has to work on them and be in overall control. At the moment, the system is chaotic. Having a lead country for every project would help considerably.
If the present muddle continues and, in three years, another European Standing Committee B is considering another Court of Auditors report and we are all sitting around stroking our beards and agonising about how inefficient things have been, I for one will begin to think that we should indeed suspend our contributions until the European Union can get its act together.
11.39 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on obtaining a debate on this worthwhile subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on their contributions.
I am delighted that our proceedings are being observed by the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has joined us from Select Committee business, which shows how important the subject is, particularly to Conservative Members, although hon. Members on both sides of the House show a great deal of interest and concern for the subject.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie did not roll over and take an ameliorating line with the Minister, and I was delighted to hear him pose many questions to which I hope the Minister will reply. I am sure that the Minister is delighted to have such a generous amount of time in which to deal with the serious issues that have been raised. That commonality
214WH
is to be welcomed, but there are some hard questions to which he must respond. This is a probing debate, in the spirit of a probing amendment.
I have the most sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who made a valuable contribution. He described the hon. Member for Clydebank as dreaming the impossible dream. Like him, I too, am surprised that the hon. Gentleman stopped short of calling for the repatriation of funds. The hon. Member for Richmond Park certainly gave the impression that she was calling for the repatriation of funds, or moving towards calling for that as a result of the evidence that she had received.
Whether our contributions to the EC have diminished or decreased over the years, they remain high. The expenditure profile of total contributions to the EC range from £533 million in 1997–98 to £760 million in 1998–99 and £750 million in 1999–2000. Of that total, the European development fund received £137 million in 1997–98, £228 million in 1998–99 and just under £250,000 in the current financial year. As the hon. Member for Clydebank said, those are sizeable sums. They have risen from 12 per cent. to more than 30 per cent. as a proportion of the total aid spend. Such sums must be effective and properly scrutinised.
I understand that the United Kingdom has a backlog of payments for Stabex under the EDF totalling about £65 million, which I believe it has been agreed with the Commission will be paid over future years. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us an update of the position and fill us in on that particular annotation.
The Department produced a document entitled "Working in Partnership with the European Community, in December 1998, which I read with care, and with some of which, like others, I can agree. It states:
"DFID wishes to strengthen its collaboration with the EC in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of efforts to promote international development."
No one can quarrel with that. However, I hope that the Minister will tell us how DFID has strengthened its collaboration with the EC and what progress has been made on that valuable aim, where that has taken us and how it has manifested itself.
The document also states that
"patchy implementation of project cycle management techniques impairs the quality of the Commission's programmes. These difficulties are reinforced by inappropriate staffing, and systems which centralise most authority in Brussels. It is important to note that weaknesses in the EC's programmes arise partly from constraints imposed by member states."
Will the Minister update us on what action has been taken to remedy the inappropriate staffing, who has been moved on, retired or fired, who has been taken on and with what expertise, what detailed constraints have been imposed by member states and what efforts have the Government made to persuade other member states to change those constraints? What success have the Government had on that agenda? There is no doubt that the difficulties and the lack of accountability are causing great concern, as has been reflected in all of today's contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the recent Court of Auditors' annual report, published on 3 December 1999, and I make no apologies

215WH
for doing the same. I see the Minister nod. I hope that he does so because he is intimately familiar with the document. I assume great knowledge on his part and I am sure that I am not mistaken.
I am extremely concerned by that report, including the Commission's responses, which overall give the impression of much complacency. What action has the Minister taken following receipt of that report? What are his views on the Commission's responses and what does he see as the way forward to deal with an increasingly difficult problem?
Chapter 2, paragraph 7, on technical co-operation, states:
"In 1996, the Court carried out an audit of technical cooperation activities … the results of which were communicated to the Commission by early 1997."
More alarmingly, the report said:
"In the follow-up inquiry, carried out on a number of aspects of technical cooperation, it was found that in most cases the problems identified earlier were still persisting."
Obviously, no effective action has been taken in that case.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady tell me again what year that was?
Mrs. Gillan: The report was published on 3 December 1999 and I was referring to chapter 2, paragraph 7, on technical co-operation. The audit was carried out in 1996 and was communicated in 1997, but no action was taken. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my fears on that.
Similarly, paragraph 23 on regional co-operation under the sixth EDF, states:
"Nothing had been done in response to the Court's observation that a report needs to be submitted to the discharge authority every year on the overall implementation of regional cooperation and on the state of progress of and adjustments to the RIPs."
I hope that the Minister will also address his mind to that comment and consider whether any action that he has taken could result in an improvement in performance in that area.
Paragraphs 30 and 31 relate to putting works contracts out to tender. Paragraph 31 is a short simple sentence, but it reflects the worsening performance of the organisation. It states:
"The Court has not obtained any information which indicates improvement in this area."
Despite criticisms and constructive suggestions, there have been no improvements. That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seems to be a pattern that is being constantly repeated.
The Chairman (Dr. Michael Clark): Order. It is pleasant to be called Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am not an appointed Deputy Speaker, although Mr. Winterton, who follows me, is. Therefore, while I am in the Chair, it would be better to address me by my name.
Mrs. Gillan: I apologise, Dr. Clark. I thought that you had been elevated to great station. I shall continue to refer to you by name.
216WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out the qualifications of the audit, but it is worth looking at the summary of the Court of Auditors report. No table of revenue was included and the table of debts was incomplete, despite being an explicit requirement of the financial regulations. He referred to two other matters: in respect of the eighth EDF, the chief authorising officer as well as all persons with sub-delegated powers had acted without being covered by formal authorisation and the audit showed a significant number of formal errors. In addition, the audit showed a high incidence of failures to comply with regulations affecting the assigned funds of the eighth EDF and often indicated both a failure properly to apply control procedures and—where no direct effect on the amount involved in the transaction was identified—formal errors. The court's audit again revealed a significant incidence of formal errors affecting the primary commitments and continuous substantive errors, as evidenced in the summary.
What sort of confidence can we have in an organisation that is responsible for taking taxpayers' money and distributing it on their behalf to the poorest around the globe when an audit report carries such severe indictments? I said in an intervention that we have a duty to challenge what happens when we see headlines such as "Brussels wastes £18 million in Ivory Coast aid fraud". A newspaper reports that, according to a document seen by it,
"up to 37 times the market price for health equipment such as stethoscopes and baby scales"
was paid. The document is highly critical of the European Community team that was in-country, but none of its members will face disciplinary action.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has called for a full investigation and disciplinary action and his reaction to what has been described as a scandal that
"represents the worst single abuse of aid funds in European Union history."
These events are embarrassing for the new Commission vice-president, Neil Kinnock, who only a couple of weeks ago promised a "new sense of responsibility" in Brussels spending. What is the Minister's assessment of whether this matter could lead to further resignations of Commissioners? After all, 20 resigned last March after disclosures of fraud and mismanagement. The report goes on to say that local companies in the Ivory Coast had for almost a decade
"routinely over-billed and produced false bills"
without Brussels noticing. Most of the missing money was intended to boost the African state's health sector. Perhaps he will join me in condemning that corruption and give me the reassurance I need that he is hot on the trail of rooting out such examples of fraud and corruption.
I have obtained a list, which runs to 12 pages, of projects that are in line for future funding from the EDF. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with them and hope that he will tell hon. Members—perhaps not during the debate, but by placing evaluations in the Library—his view of the individual projects that have been suggested. Following reports such as the audit to which I have referred, there will be a great deal of concern about the way in which money is spent. We need to know our own Government's attitude towards the

217WH
proposal to spend 18 million euros on environmental and human resources development programmes in Fiji. Those programmes may be worth while, but I want our Government to make a detailed evaluation of all projects that are suggested, whether for Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Mauritania, Mali or Mozambique. I hope that he feels able to respond on each project, stating our Government's view on whether it is worth while.
In a speech on 28 July 1999, the Secretary of State said:
"The question is always, will the money be better spent directly by member states or through the EDF. The EDF money is not additional. If the instruments of the EDF are ineffective it is obviously better spent directly by member states."
I hope that the Minister will tell us to where the Secretary of State's thinking has moved since she made that speech. Is she now of the view that the instruments of the EDF are ineffective and does she believe that the money would be better spent directly by the member states? She went on:
"I want to hear the EC praised for its speed and efficiency, not criticised for delay and bureaucracy. I want to be confident that the quality of all the EC's programmes will be lifted up to the standard of its best ones."
Sadly, those are impossible dreams and that has clearly not happened with the EDF.
I shall be generous with the time that I leave for the Minister. We need to know what steps have been taken to establish real accountability and his assurance that the fine words, which have been echoed by him and the Secretary of State, are being followed through with action. We need greater transparency and we must ensure that the money that the British taxpayer gives to Brussels to spend on the poorest in society is spent effectively, not wasted in fraud and corruption.
11.57 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): This is my first opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government to a debate in the new environment of Westminster Hall, which takes some getting used to as we have seen this morning. This is also my first debate under your distinguished chairmanship, Dr. Clark, and it is a great privilege to participate. I have known you for many years and co-operated closely with you on all-party matters.
Other hon. Members have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) as the hon. Member for Clydebank, but I am able to pronounce his constituency perfectly and can give him his full title. Like others, I congratulate him not only on obtaining the debate, but on seeking it in the first place and on the commitment and concern he has shown over many years. I am glad that he is a member of the International Development Committee. Its Chairman—the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells)—is also present and I am sure he agrees that my hon. Friend makes a significant and positive contribution. For the benefit of readers of our proceedings, I should say that he is nodding.
218WH
In Lisbon last week, I had the pleasure of attending the informal meeting of Development Ministers—the informal Development Council—which focused principally on the role of the European Union in security, democracy and development in Africa. All the discussions and all the other Development Ministers present reminded me once again of not only the importance but the current weaknesses, of EU development assistance, which have been eloquently described by others. I notice that hon. Members quoted extensively from the Secretary of State's speech, so I am sure that they will acknowledge that the Government have been on the job on this matter. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred to that. Above all, we focused on the steps that need to be taken to maximise the potential of all the European Union programmes to eliminate poverty. That potential is there, but it needs to be realised, as the Government recognise and have for the two and a half years of their lifetime.
Mrs. Gillan: I assure the Minister that I am not going to become part of a mutual admiration society. I quoted from the Secretary of State's speech because I wanted to know what progress had been made. Hon. Members need to know that this is not all hot air.
Mr. Foulkes: Hon. Members will know what progress has been made when I can make progress with my speech.
I remind the hon. Lady that our White Paper was the first development White Paper for more than 20 years. In all the years of their existence, the last Government never produced one. In our White Paper, we said that the single biggest challenge the world faced in the new millennium was that one in four of our fellow human beings was living in extreme poverty. That is an awful indictment.
In a series of United Nations conferences in the last decade, all the Governments of the world have committed themselves to a series of targets for poverty eradication. We cannot alleviate awful, grinding poverty; no sticking plaster will help. Such poverty must be reduced, and ultimately eradicated. The main goal is to halve the proportion of the world's population living in such abject poverty by 2015. Associated targets include universal primary education, access to basic health care and reproductive health care for all, and sustainable development plans, including commitments to reverse the loss of environmental resources in every country.
Those targets were agreed in all those international conferences. It is this British Government who have taken them off the shelf, dusted them down and placed them at the forefront of our policy. The contents of our White Paper have been taken up by other countries throughout the world.
I remind the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that a statement made in the House of Commons on 5 November 1997—I hope that she was present—provided an opportunity for all sorts of questions to be raised about the White Paper. There have been opportunities to discuss it throughout the

219WH
country in various forums, and it has been discussed in the Select Committee. We have not shrunk from discussing the White Paper and all its aspects, including international development targets, either in Parliament or outside.
Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister recall that, at the time of the statement to which he referred, the Secretary of State assured me that the aims of the White Paper were fully supported and applauded by every Department?
Mr. Foulkes: Absolutely. I shall follow that up shortly.
The international development targets are practical and achievable, but to achieve them we need to generate the political will, mobilise the resources and adopt the right policies, not just in this and every other bilateral donor country but internationally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an announcement last week—she was going to do so in oral questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you and your colleagues managed to ensure that that was not possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true"] She therefore made the announcement in the form of a written answer. She said that the Government planned to produce a second development White Paper—as I said, none were produced in the lifetime of the last Government—that would place the challenge of globalisation at the heart of our development policy. There would be no change in direction, but our work would feature a greater depth and more detail. I hope and expect that there will be a great deal of consultation before and after the publication of the White Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie emphasised the importance of European Community development assistance to meeting the challenges that I have described. The statistics speak for themselves, and are worth repeating. The EC is the world's second largest multilateral donor, spending approximately 5 billion euro each year. Together with the bilateral programmes of its member states, the European Union provides two thirds of global development assistance. That is a formidable amount. Through our Department, the United Kingdom contributes about 15 per cent. of EC aid resources, which, as my hon. Friend said, take up about 30 per cent. of our budget.
Incidentally, the percentage was agreed at a European summit in Edinburgh, where I received my university education, in 1992. It was not my party that was in power at the time.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that—as my hon. Friend pointed out—in 1979 United Kingdom development assistance amounted to 0.52 per cent. of gross national product. Under the last Government, it fell to 0.26 per cent. What the hon. Gentleman does not realise is that it is now on its way back up, surely and steadily. It is now at 0.28 per cent., and we intend to go even further. The hon. Gentleman
220WH
is out of date in that regard, and I regret to say that some of his other comments were based on out-of-date facts and perceptions.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister tell us the Government's present target for aid as a percentage of gross domestic product? Does it differ from the pledges given before the last general election?
Mr. Foulkes: We have adopted the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, and we aim to move towards that figure steadily. Indeed, we have already done so: each year we have shown that we are moving up. We shall move up next year and the year after that, and throughout the 15 or 20 years of Labour government.
Mrs. Gillan: Obviously the Minister is backing his commitment to move towards the 0.7 per cent. target, but he must surely agree that the words he utters are meaningless unless he gives us a timetable. Will he put us all out of our misery, and tell us in which year the Labour Administration will achieve the target? We need to know the year now.
Mr. Foulkes: What a familiar question. I could have predicted it. I did not have it written down, but I had it in my head.
Of course we will achieve the target as quickly as possible, and the fact is that we are already moving up. I can tell the hon. Lady that, if we had continued at the level established by the last Government, by 2020 we would not be spending anything on development assistance.
If we are to meet the international development targets, we must deploy the full potential of the international system, and that includes the European Community. As everyone has said, however, the effectiveness of EC development assistance is far below its potential. Independent evaluations have highlighted a range of problems. Too much effort has been focused on spending and input, and not enough on achieving an impact and monitoring it. The Community lacks an overall and coherent development policy, which means that decisions have no clear development focus. As a result, a decreasing share of EC development assistance has been going to the poor countries—54 per cent. in 1997, compared with 75 per cent. 10 years earlier.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked for a target. We accept that a minimum of 70 per cent. should be our target for assistance to the less developed countries: that is what we are achieving in Britain, and we want to increase it. Most other member countries are doing the same, and we think it sensible for the EC to adopt that policy.
The major recipients of EC aid, which a decade ago were the poor countries in Africa and Asia, are now—as the hon. Member for Richmond Park pointed out—the better-off countries of the southern Mediterranean, and poverty has not diminished in those poorer countries. These trends seriously impair the EC's contribution to the international poverty eradication strategy.
There have been references to the report of the European Court of Auditors. We welcome the report. The Court of Auditors is a good and careful watchdog

221WH
and monitor of what is happening with the expenditure of the Commission and what is happening in the Community. It makes valuable recommendations for improvements. We need these criticisms to highlight weaknesses and to enable us to know what we have to tackle. It is wrong, however, to say that it is only in the Commission that there is fraud or misappropriation that needs checking.
For example, the Public Accounts Committee discovers certain things that are happening in the United Kingdom from time to time. France, Germany and other member states have not been without their own problems. The Europhobes, who are so paranoid about Europe, think that things go wrong only within the European bureaucracy, but they go wrong within member states.
It has been said that given what has been revealed in the Court of Auditors report, the members of the Commission should resign. That is precisely what they did, in an entirely unprecedented act. The entire Commission resigned following scandals and revelations. It was the right decision. A new Commission was appointed, which gives the EU a chance to make radical improvements to its development programmes, which we believe it is starting to do.
There have been two main changes. First, instead of five Commissioners responsible for different aspects of development, there are now only two. That is a great improvement. The two are Poul Nielson, the former Danish development Minister, who is now the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, and Chris Patten, a former Conservative development Minister, who is the new Commissioner for External Relations. We welcome the simplification and we welcome also the two appointments for the personal qualities that each individual brings to the job.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give the House his view on whether anybody should take responsibility for the £18 million that has gone missing in the Ivory Coast? I hope that you will think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a good time to raise the issue. I would like the hon. Gentleman's comments on Georgio Cocchi, who runs the Ivory Coast desk in Brussels, who has said that £18 million
"is a negligible amount, you must remember that it forms part of a budget of around £70 million annually."
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a serious amount, and that people must be held accountable and removed from their positions if they cannot account for £18 million?
Mr. Foulkes: I intended to mention the matter later but I shall do so now. I raised the matter at the Development Council meeting at Lisbon. Poul Nielson told me that the money has been returned and that the matter has been and is being dealt with.
Poul Nielson is responsible for development issues worldwide and Chris Patten is responsible for political relations world wide. As we know from our own experience, successful development policy depends on having a clear and strong development focus, and then
222WH
working closely with our colleagues who are responsible for political relations, trade policy and international finance, for example. It is what we describe as coherence.
Both Poul Nielson and Chris Patten have stated publicly their commitment to poverty eradication. I know that they work closely together, and that is essential. Although Poul Nielson has global development responsibilities, direct control of non-Lomé aid and the programmes for central and eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia are with Chris Patten. However, both Commissioners are determined to tackle the procedures for implementing the Community's programmes, which remain slow and inefficient. They are reviewing all of the arrangements that are currently in place with a view to improving them.
Mr. Chope: The Minister asserts that as a result of the resignation of the previous Commission, everything is now hunky dory. How is that consistent with the Commission's complacent reply to the special report No. 4/99 of the Court of Auditors, which was published on 29 September 1999, which states:
"The Commission considers that its financial management information system provides all the necessary information"?
It goes on to make a complacent statement.
Mr. Foulkes: I did not say that everything is now hunky dory. I said quite the reverse. I said that things are improving but much more needs to be done. I will continue saying that.
That brings me to the second main change following the appointment of the new Commission—the commitment to reform. Chris Patten and Poul Nielson can make some progress within the systems for which they are directly responsible, but some changes must be made throughout the Commission. That is why Neil Kinnock's proposals for reforming the financial and staff management of the Commission are so important and need to be implemented. We need fundamental changes in financial procedures—such as delegation of authority to local officers and more rational audit arrangements—that will improve financial responsibility and cut unnecessary delays. It is not enough to design good aid programmes if they are delivered too late to address the problems that they are meant to tackle. The hon. Member for Christchurch cannot say that I am claiming that everything is hunky-dory.
We also need fundamental improvements in staff management in the Commission so that it can develop the skills that are needed to design and deliver modern aid programmes. The Commission needs to be able to meet the standards which other developing agencies, including my Department, have set. I tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park that we have seconded 20 officials to the Commission to help to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.
The new Commission is a crucial opportunity for improvement. The key Commissioners have strong development backgrounds and the Commission as a whole is committed to reform. We support it and urge it to carry this reform through as quickly as possible. However, we are not complacent. Change is always

223WH
difficult and our job is to scrutinise the Commission's actions as much as its words, and to maintain the pressure for the improvements that we all know are needed.
It is important to recognise, however, that the Commission, member states and the European Parliament share responsibility for past failures due to the pressure to reach spending targets irrespective of impact, the pressure to spend in the spheres of interest of individual member states and procedural constraints that make it impossible to respond quickly and efficiently. We, too, share the responsibility for making improvements. As the House and the Select Committee on International Development know, the Government have been working with the Commission and other member states to improve the quality and effectiveness of EC development assistance. My Department published a strategy paper—it has not been much quoted and I hope that Members have read it—on this issue in December 1998. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out a number of proposals in a speech in Brussels last July. I know that Members have read her speech because they have quoted from it. We have made some progress in achieving our objectives, but there is still a long way to go.
I agree that we must all work strenuously to secure a clear development policy for the EU which is focused on poverty eradication, and not on using precious aid budgets for political gestures, as has been done in the past. We must all work to equip the Commission with the skills and the systems that it needs to manage the EC aid budget properly, and to deliver real change on the ground in poor countries. We must all work also to coordinate more effectively our development programmes—that applies not only to the EC but to World bank and bilateral programmes—in a way that puts the needs of developing countries first, rather than the short-term interests of companies and contractors in our own countries. We will take on board the suggestion of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about one-country lead. That has already been considered by the European Community and it is something that we would like to consider. I am grateful to her for raising the matter.
We must seize every opportunity to maximise the contribution of EC development assistance to the goal of poverty eradication. One such opportunity is to redress the imbalance in non-Lomé EC aid. European Union Foreign Ministers agreed last July that the Commission should table proposals for the overall allocation of the EC non-Lomé aid budget across the various regional spending programmes for the next seven years. That is a great improvement. It would allow Ministers to discuss EC development priorities as a whole. Without these proposals, regional allocations will be agreed individually and there will be no improvement in the EC's poverty focus. First come, first served is a bad method for setting a global policy. We are asking the Commission to come up quickly with proposals for an overall examination of the EC's development spending.
224WH
Hon. Members have mentioned the disproportionate amount of EC aid that goes to richer countries. EC Mediterranean programmes, known as MEDA, warrant particular attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, as they receive one of the largest allocations of aid commitments. However, as Commissioner Patten has acknowledged, the Commission has been unable to spend, and the recipient countries unable to absorb, more than an embarrassingly small fraction of those commitments, thus locking funds that could have been spent on more poverty-focused programmes in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. That matter is being looked at.
My hon. Friend rightly asked what the British Government and other member states are doing to reduce MEDA funding. As our objective is to increase the proportion of EC aid to the poorest countries, we believe that MEDA funds should be reduced. We have argued and are arguing strongly for improvements to the development quality of MEDA programmes. Several other member states share our concerns and support us, particularly Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.
My hon. Friend rightly objects to the move by the Commission to use MEDA funds to combat migration. That is not a proper use of development money. I assure him and other hon. Members that we are opposing that strongly within the EU Councils. Again, we have support from other member states. We are arguing for any such expenditure to be excluded from all development budgets.
As I have said, instead, we need a comprehensive development policy for the Commission that commits us to working with the international community to meet the development targets. The policy should therefore focus on poverty eradication and should call for a coherent approach across all EC policies, including international trade, agriculture, fisheries and others, so that they do not undermine the EU's development policy. Commissioner Nielson is due to table a draft development policy next month for discussion with EU member states and with civil society. That is a big step forward. I hope that Members realise that and that strong voices, here and elsewhere, will scrutinise the Commission proposal in detail.
We need the underpinning structure and procedures in the Commission, so that it can implement our policy effectively and efficiently. Whatever the successes of EC aid in the past, they have been overshadowed by the appalling delays in implementation. The effect has been to minimise the impact of European aid and has led some developing countries even to reject EC money.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of aid untying for the least developed countries. Discussions on that are continuing in the OECD development assistance committee. A large majority of DAC members are agreed on measures to be taken. However, one or two members still have reservations. I assure him and other hon. Members that we will continue to work for agreement at the DAC high-level meeting in May. It will then be possible to report to the G8 Okinawa summit, as

225WH
he requested, that a successful outcome has been reached, in line with the wishes expressed at the two previous G8 summits.
Mr. Worthington: The key issue is the definition of development. My hon. Friend may not be able to give the answer today, but if there is to be purity and quality in European development, external affairs and development will have to be separated. It is legitimate, for example, to support the middle east peace process, but that should not be categorised as development. Will there be a redefinition of what in the European budget counts as development money?
Mr. Foulkes: That is exactly the sort of comment that can be made in the consultation on Poul Nielson's paper. We will examine that matter.
I come to one of the more positive stories of EC development assistance—there are positive stories—the successor to the Lomé convention. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my small part in it. Negotiations are not quite complete. They started in 1998 and were almost concluded last December, but, as I speak, Ministers from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries as well as the EU are meeting in Brussels to tie up the loose ends of the new convention. I hope that it will be agreed today and tomorrow.
As hon. Members know, Lomé is a unique collaboration, covering trade, development and political co-operation between the EU and the 71 ACP countries. The current negotiations mark the most important revision of the convention since its inception nearly three decades ago. The Select Committee on International Development looked at both Lomé and the general EC budget spending on development in 1998 and made a number of helpful recommendations. The Government have been pursuing those and other points in the negotiations.
I am pleased to report significant improvements in the new convention, which will benefit developing countries. They are a direct focus on poverty elimination as the convention's overriding objective; reform of the financial management of the EDF; abolition of the complex and slow procedures—I expect a cheer—notably Stabex and Sysmin, which will be replaced by a new system to provide support to countries whose development efforts are compromised by a downturn in export revenue; and more up-to-date management of development assistance.
In exchange for those improvements, there will be an ample replenishment of the EDF. The importance of good governance is highlighted by making it a "fundamental element" underpinning the new convention. Civil society's role in the convention has been enhanced. For the first time, it will be possible to take action in cases of severe corruption. That could include suspending countries from the convention and will work in the same way as for breaches of the convention's "essential elements"—human rights, democracy and the rule of law. So far, under that rule,
226WH
development assistance has been partially suspended for four countries that have suffered coups d'etat.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that those are significant steps forward, which have been agreed by the British Government, who have pursued recommendations from the International Development Committee, argued the case effectively in Brussels, secured the agreement of other countries, and worked effectively within Europe as a powerful voice.
The new convention, necessarily, does not detail how development co-operation will be implemented. That is the function of a separate agreement between EU member states, which we shall discuss over coming months. We will push for increased decentralisation of authority from Brussels to improve the speed and quality of delivery.
I know that the Commission, which is well aware of current problems, wants to do that, too. We will continue to encourage the Community increasingly to provide its assistance in the context of government-led, joint-donor programmes, rather than stand-alone projects.
One of the most important aspects of the new convention and the one that has involved the most difficult negotiations is a new trade deal that maximises African, Caribbean and Pacific countries' access to the EU market, while promoting their gradual integration into the global economy. The preferential trading arrangements will be maintained until 2008, after which new World Trade Organisation-compatible arrangements will come into effect. Those will be free trade agreements between groups of ACP countries and the EU, but they will initially allow mainly non-reciprocal access to the EU market. To allow ACP countries time to adjust, fully reciprocal free trade would not be expected until probably 20 years from now.
One of the British Government's concerns in the negotiation has been countries that are not able to join those free trade areas in 2008. Two important commitments have been secured. Lesser developed countries—the poorest countries—will benefit from the EU's commitment to allow duty-free access for, effectively, all their products by 2005. For other, more developed countries, the EU has undertaken to examine all possibilities to provide a new, WTO-compatible trading framework with benefits equivalent to those under the current convention.
ACP and EU Ministers have agreed that the EDF will be used to make a substantial contribution to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. A total of 1 billion euro from previously unspent EDF funds is being made available for debt relief for the poorest and most indebted countries in Africa. It is an ill wind that blows no one any good.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have been leading the world in debt cancellation. The money released must be used for poverty eradication, education, health, water and sanitation.

227WH
This has been a good debate. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Government are moving in the right direction—the direction that all hon. Members who spoke in the debate have encouraged us to take.

Peach Report
12.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest, as a solicitor—but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will be pleased to know that I have no immediate plans to apply for judicial appointment. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor would be unlikely to appoint me even if I were to apply.
I certainly do not intend to repeat arguments that I have made before—on what has become quite a well-worn issue—in debates on the Access to Justice Act 1999 and, in the past year, on the number of judges, but it is important that we should put Sir Len Peach's report in context. The context includes the need to maintain judicial standards and to maintain impartiality and independence, particularly with the advent of the Human Rights Act 1998 cases that are likely to be appearing before the courts: cases on devolution; the increasing use of judicial review; straightforward political cases, such as that of Pinochet; and wider issues of judicial interests dealt with recently by the Court of Appeal.
We have to try to obtain a more representative Bench, reflecting society. It is a disgrace that, currently, only seven of 98 High Court judges are women, and that none of them are from an ethnic minority background. Since May 1997, of the 85 judges appointed, fewer than 10 per cent. were women, and only one judge was from an ethnic minority background. There is also a real disparity in appointments between solicitors and barristers.
Against that background, we shall have to do much to restore public confidence. Public confidence is currently at an all-time low, as evidenced by last year's research by the Nuffield Foundation showing that the general public view judges as being overwhelmingly out of touch.
I certainly welcome the establishment of the inquiry by Sir Len Peach into judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments. The Lord Chancellor must be congratulated on making the report possible—although the inquiry will have to be given two, rather than three, cheers. It is a pity that Sir Len's terms of reference did not include an opportunity to examine some of the more structural and fundamental problems in appointments. Nevertheless, I very much welcome Sir Len's work and the opportunity that I had to meet him and contribute my views to the debate.
The scope of Sir Len's report is important. For the first time, there was a clear recognition of the distinction between the skills needed for advocacy and those needed to be a judge. I was very pleased to read the comments of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, in his press notice, welcoming Sir Len's report:
"the best advocates do not necessarily make the best judges. Today's judges need to be able to meet the demands of managing cases and to have the personal skills needed to run a court, as well as being first-class lawyers."
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
"The skills and experience needed to be a judge may perfectly well be shown by a successful litigation solicitor as by a leading advocate".

229WH
I should add parenthetically that, in the new world of the Woolf reforms and the new civil justice rules, I suspect that, certainly when it comes to case management, solicitors may have more of the required skills than barristers do.
As for Sir Len's detailed recommendations, he starts off by tackling the most contentious issue: secret soundings. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister denies that secret soundings exist—he said so in answer to a parliamentary question; he prefers a rather longer definition of the process—but, perhaps simply as shorthand, I may use the term. I think that we agree on what we are talking about, even if we do not necessarily agree on the terminology.
Sir Len has not tackled secret soundings head on, but operated within the context of his terms of reference. Nevertheless, he has presented some ideas to mitigate some of the worst effects of the process—or as he describes it, to level the playing field—by suggesting that applicants could nominate their own referees, whose opinions would be weighted accordingly in the overall scheme of things. It is also important that secret soundings documentation will now concentrate much more on the skills requirement of the post, rather than on hearsay gossip, as previously feared.
I was very pleased to see Sir Len taking on some very experimental and far-thinking ideas—particularly his suggestion to establish an assessment centre, where putative judges could be interviewed, and where there could be group exercises and discussions, such as in-tray equivalents, tests, presentations and the need to train assessors for those purposes.
I particularly welcome Sir Len's proposal on psychometric competency testing, to ensure that those whom we appoint to judicial office are temperamentally suited to the position. As one who has occasionally appeared in cases in which I may have questioned the judge's personality, I very much welcome the proposal. Moreover, as one who made the suggestion to Sir Len, I am pleased that he has taken it on board.
I ask the Minister whether the Government will take on board the suggestion to establish assessment centres and testing. If they accept the suggestion, when will centres be established?
I have long advocated the establishment of a judicial appointments commission, as has the Labour party, over the years, in various policy documents. I am therefore pleased that Sir Len is proposing establishing a commission for judicial appointments. However, it is not exactly what I had in mind, and I concur with the Law Society's views on the matter. The commission should have the role of making or recommending appointments to full-time and part-time judicial posts. Commissioners are to be involved in replacing the lay element and in auditing processes. They are also to serve on selection panels, and to be involved in the important function of handling grievances and complaints.
Nevertheless, the fundamental problem with the current system which Sir Len identified remains: the lack of confidence felt by many people in the overall system, notably the consultation system and the judiciary's dominance as consultees.
Sir Len also recommends that the commission should supervise the selection process for silks. It is not quite clear whether the Lord Chancellor will take on board
230WH
that recommendation, bearing in mind that he has immediately accepted the other recommendation. If selection of silks is to be supervised by the commission, it would be useful to know whether the commissioners will be in place for this year's silk round, to provide that additional safeguard.
I was very pleased to see that Sir Len paid great attention to the need for appraisal and self-appraisal by judges. He said—and I agree:
"There is general agreement that the transition from barrister or solicitor to judge is one where training and development is necessary".
Sir Len places particular emphasis on development of tutor judges.
Sir Len also praises the experimental scheme on the Wales and Chester circuit. I pay personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has taken great interest in promoting that initiative. I shall be very interested to hear whether he will take on board Sir Len's recommendation that there should be a national roll-out of the scheme, and, if so, when he thinks that that might happen. My experience in private practice is that appraisal and self-appraisal—being on both the receiving and dishing-out ends, though that may be putting it too strongly—are a very useful process, both for personal development and for the career development of oneself and one's staff.
We should not confine appraisals to part-time judges and new appointments, but should find a way of extending the process to more of the current full-time judiciary. I realise that there may be constitutional objections to such a proposal, and I am sure that there would be objections to it by individual members of the judiciary who may not have undergone the process when in practice; but we should at least give more consideration to the proposal.
I am concerned about Sir Len's views on equal opportunity, particularly in relation to gender and race. He identifies many of the problems very well, but does not necessarily propose the right solutions. He mentions the excellent work done by the joint working party on equal opportunities in judicial appointments and silk, and it would be very helpful if the Lord Chancellor's Department responded in detail to that body's 42 recommendations, some of which were dealt with by Sir Len.
I think that, initially, we should try to address the issue by extending parts III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to appointments to the judiciary and Queen's Counsel. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that forthcoming legislation on the public sector will be extended to include indirect discrimination. It would be very worth while if such provision were extended also to those appointments.
I also welcome the commissioning of research by Dr. Kate Malleson into some of the factors that impact on applications from women and ethnic minorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give us a progress report on that research and tell us whether it will be made public when it is finished.
We tend to overlook discrimination on disability grounds, but it is taken up by Sir Len. I should have focused on it more in the general contributions that I have made in previous debates. Sir Len recommends

231WH
that the Department's informal guidelines be made public. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that he accepts that.
Sir Len also identifies the problems facing practising solicitors applying for judicial appointments, particularly part-time appointments, which are essential to allow the putative judge to get a taste of what is involved and to see whether they are up to the job. Solicitors face various practical hurdles with such part-time appointments, primarily owing to the need to maintain a practice and all the overheads that go with that. One's partners do not always welcome a request to be away for a few days at a time. We need to find ways of overcoming that problem.
I am also concerned about Sir Len's comments about the appointment of Queen's Counsel. My views on the subject are widely known and I do not want to rehearse them in detail. Sir Len repeats a suggestion previously made by others—that silk
"could be replaced by professional recognition based on seniority or personal contribution assessed within the representative legal institutions themselves."
That might be a preferable way forward. I am afraid that Sir Len does not tackle the related equal opportunities issues, but we should do so. Some of the recommendations about the judiciary could also apply to the assessment of silks.
I am also concerned about the heavy emphasis on fee earnings, without the balancing factor of pro bono work. Sir Len recommends that a table of fees for successful candidates be published annually. I have achieved that through parliamentary questions over the past couple of years. If the Lord Chancellor's Department does not publish the information in another way, it can expect further parliamentary questions from me.
I welcome Sir Len's report as a contribution to the debate. It is a pity that he was not able to carry out a root and branch investigation into the issue and come up with more fundamental conclusions, but the report is a worthwhile effort to improve the existing system. It may not be an overflowing cornucopia of structural solutions, but the Peach report is at least a modest fruit bowl, with some plum ideas to improve the existing arrangements. It stresses the qualities required of judges and proposes more balance for the consultation arrangements.
Sir Len has come up with some excellent ideas for experimentation to improve the assessment and appraisal system and has strengthened the lay element through the judicial appointments commission—sorry, the Commission for Judicial Appointments. I am not sure why the language has been changed. Perhaps it is to draw a distinction with the wider public debate. He has recognised many of the equal opportunities issues, even if he has not necessarily come up with solutions. The report provides a base that I hope can be used in future to lead to more fundamental root and branch reforms.
12.43 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on
232WH
securing the debate and on all his work over the past few years in bringing this important issue before the public and ensuring that we have a vigorous debate on how our judges are selected and on the merits of the status of Queen's Counsel. He knows that the Government do not entirely agree with his views on the best way of organising those important matters, but we are very grateful for his diligent and assiduous work in ensuring that they remain at the forefront of public debate.
Judges perform a vital role. They are a crucial element in a society that depends on the rule of law. In arbitration, judicial review or damages cases, judges make important decisions that can directly affect the lives of citizens. Therefore, the appointment of judges cannot be left to chance. The judicial appointments process must be capable of identifying the best candidates through fair and open procedures and it must reinforce the principle of judicial independence.
There have been many developments in the judicial and QC appointments processes in recent years, in particular the move to open competitions for most appointments. I know that my hon. Friend and others have strongly welcomed that. The Lord Chancellor is constantly seeking to improve the procedures. In July 1999, he asked Sir Leonard Peach to examine them, to see if any further steps could be taken to improve their openness and accountability. Sir Leonard was given unfettered access to the procedures and to individual records, and he held 40 meetings with groups and individuals to obtain a range of views. He has had a long and distinguished career in personnel at the highest levels and brought his unrivalled experience to bear in his scrutiny of procedures. Until recently, he was Commissioner for Public Appointments. In that role, which was independent of the Government, he monitored, regulated and provided advice on departmental procedures for ministerial appointments to various public bodies. We were confident that he would apply his objectivity and expertise and provide an impartial assessment of the judicial and QC selection procedures.
The Lord Chancellor warmly welcomed Sir Leonard's report when it was published on 3 December 1999 and said that he would act promptly on the central recommendation of appointing a Judicial Appointments Commissioner and would consider Sir Leonard's further recommendations in detail, along with other comments and reactions to his report.
Sir Leonard highlighted the potential confusion between appointment as Queen's Counsel and appointment to the Bench. The Lord Chancellor welcomed Sir Leonard's clear distinction between the criteria for QC and judicial appointments. The rank of QC is awarded to the leading junior advocates of the day, including solicitors. The Lord Chancellor readily acknowledges that the best advocates do not necessarily make the best judges, as my hon. Friend has said. That was made expressly clear in the press notice that accompanied the report.
Today's judges must be able to meet the demands of managing cases and need the personal skills required to run a court, as well as being first-class lawyers. In the past, there may have been too great a tendency to promote the best advocates from the Bar to the Bench, without paying sufficient attention to the possibility of promoting others of equal skill and competence who

233WH
undertake slightly different functions in the legal system. The skills and experience needed to be a judge can be found in a successful litigation solicitor as well as a leading advocate. That has already been proved by the appointment of solicitors to the Bench. The Lord Chancellor wants to appoint the judges with the best potential, regardless of whether they come from the ranks of barristers or solicitors. I am grateful for the opportunity to make that clear.
My hon. Friend has repeated his concerns about what he calls secret soundings. He suggested that Sir Leonard did not tackle the issue head on. I must respectfully disagree; he looked at it carefully. I do not like the expression "secret soundings". I understand the concerns, but it would be more accurate to talk about confidential assessments of a candidate's suitability. Sir Leonard acknowledged that the consultation process is controversial, but, having looked at it in detail, he said:
"as an experienced selector, my conclusion is that to abandon the consultation process would be a neglect of a valuable input into the assessment."
I stress that it is one part of the assessment and is not conclusive. The system has been approved and enhanced by the report and the Lord Chancellor is committed to retaining that part of the process. He is reassured by Sir Leonard's view.
Assessments are provided in confidence, but that is an inevitable part of any high-level appointments process, whether to the Bench or to other high-level positions. Candidates for the judiciary are told which judges and members of the profession will be consulted and are asked to name others who can assess their suitability. I welcome that development, as does my hon. Friend.
The assessments are provided in writing and are now made against the criteria for appointment. The Lord Chancellor requires consultees to be objective in their assessments and to provide evidence to support them. He disregards any comments that do not appear to be based on that approach and no one person's assessment is or could be decisive. There is nothing to prevent consultees from volunteering information directly to applicants about the assessments they have made of them, but that must be a matter for the consultee alone to decide.
We must accept that in any open competition for judicial posts, more people will be unsuccessful—and therefore to some extent disappointed—than successful. Unsuccessful candidates are able to talk to officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department who will give feedback on the assessments made. The feedback includes, on a non-attributed basis, information about matters contained in the assessments. If the candidate was interviewed, the feedback will also cover how he or she fared in the interview. It is important to note that many candidates take up that offer, and last year about 500 feedback interviews were conducted. Sir Leonard Peach found the feedback system to be "a remarkable feature" and "most impressive". I hope that my hon. Friend—who is also learned—will accept that that is an important part of the confidential assessment process.
Sir Leonard also says that there needs to be confidence in the relevance of the information being provided and that it is based on evidence and not on hearsay. Although that is the aim—and assessments from consultees are already sought on forms which ask
234WH
for ratings against the criteria and for narrative evidence—Sir Leonard advises on improvements to the system. The Lord Chancellor is happy to take those on board promptly.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the additional recommendations for a one-day assessment centre and certain psychometric tests. The recommendations are that we pilot a one-day assessment centre and that psychometric and competence tests be commissioned. The Lord Chancellor intends to take forward those two recommendations together. He appreciates that an assessment centre is to some extent the Rolls-Royce of selection methods and recognises that to set up a one-day pilot assessment centre where psychometric and competence tests will form part of the selection process will be a considerable step forward, entailing considerable effort. None the less, it is important to get it right and we do not envisage being able to take assessment packages off the shelf. Appointing for judicial office is a unique and important function.
The assessment centre, as envisaged by the Lord Chancellor, will have to be tailor made for judicial appointments, so there will have to be a considerable amount of work over the next one to two years to set up the pilot. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being taken forward.
The Lord Chancellor has accepted in principle Sir Leonard's proposal that there should be a Commission for Judicial Appointments. He envisages appointing this year a first commissioner, who will be supported in due course by a team of deputy commissioners. The commissioners will be drawn from a range of backgrounds and the commission will undertake the tasks outlined by Sir Leonard.
I can tell my hon. Friend, as he raised the matter specifically, that this year's silk round—that is, those who are to be notified at Easter this year—will not have the benefit of the Commission for Judicial Appointments, but we hope that all open competitions for the judiciary later in the year and next year's silk round will have the benefit of the commission.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he confirm that the terms of reference of the judicial appointments commissioners will be published and that it is his and the Lord Chancellor's wish that there will be no element of political correctness or any artificial concept of gender and ethnic balance? We want the very best people for all these appointments. Will that be clearly set out in the judicial appointments commissioners' terms of reference?
Mr. Lock: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the terms of reference for the Commission for Judicial Appointments will be published. As for political correctness, I assure him that we are looking for the best candidates for the judiciary and those candidates will be drawn from those who apply.
I accept that we have only 10 women on the High Court Bench. To some extent, that is a reflection of entry into the legal profession some 20 to 25 years ago, retention within the legal profession, and the processes of advancement within the private legal professions that have brought about the circumstances where those who

235WH
apply with suitable experience and eminence come from a relatively limited pool. However, as I said earlier, the Lord Chancellor remains concerned that that group should be identified according to their true characteristics and experience of judicial office, which is much wider than just the best advocates appearing on the front row in the courts today. I hope that that will expand the pool and result in more people applying.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lock: Certainly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Although the Minister can indeed give way, in such a debate as this he is under no pressure or obligation to do so as it is a debate between one hon. Member and the Minister. However, as the Minister has given way, I hope that the intervention will be brief.
Mr. Grieve: I shall indeed be brief. Will the Minister confirm that the statistics available would suggest that the pool is expanding and that, for instance, the number of women who are likely to be eligible to apply for the judiciary will be much larger than it was 25 years ago and is increasing?
Mr. Lock: I can certainly confirm that the pool is expanding. Hon. Members may be interested to know that there are now one solicitor, 10 women, but unfortunately no High Court judges of ethnic origin. At the lower levels, the figures are more encouraging. Of 634 appointments filled by means of open competition in 1998–99, 23.5 per cent., or just under a quarter, were women; 5.4 per cent. were of ethnic minority origin; 46.4 per cent. were solicitors; 37.1 per cent. were junior barristers; 5.7 per cent. were Queen's Counsel and 10.9
236WH
per cent. were non-practising lawyers. Although there is a good spread across judicial appointments generally, I accept that we still have work to do at senior levels.
My hon. Friend has raised a large number of issues and I anticipate having to write to him on those that I do not have time to cover. I am happy to confirm that the Kate Malleson research into race and sex discrimination, which covers an important matter, is due to be published this month and of course will be made public.
My hon. Friend also referred to appraisal—an important but delicate issue. The pilot in north Wales involving deputy district judges is impressive and appears to be going well, but it would not be appropriate to roll out any pilot until we were confident that we had managed to assess its full impact and learned lessons from it—otherwise it would not be a pilot.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we approach appraisal very much for the benefit of the people being appraised and not as a quasi-disciplinary stick to be held over part-time judges as a reason for not appointing them. It is all part of the process of ensuring that we get the best judges available for our courts. Appraisal issues in respect of the full-time judiciary are very much more delicate and must, in essence, be a matter for the judges themselves, without straying into their judicial independence. As my hon. Friend realises, I am sure that there are delicate issues of constitutional propriety involved.
In essence, Sir Leonard's report gave the team in the Lord Chancellor's Department very good marks for their work. He said that the overall impression of the Department's work was one of thoroughness, competence and professionalism. However, there are clearly areas where we can improve and we are grateful to Sir Len for highlighting them. The work will be carried through quickly and thoroughly. It is a very important area and we must make sure that we get it right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon for introducing the debate and I hope that I have answered many of the points that he has raised.

Energy for Democracy (Serbia)
1 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I quote from a fax sent by Ms Emilja Kiel to the UK Committee for Peace in the Balkans, made available to me by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The fax states:
"Yesterday in Belgrade a baby girl of six months died of cold. She was a Serbian Kosovo refugee whose parents along with a group of other Serbs from Kosovo found shelter in the ruins of a (NATO bombed) concrete factory."
The family of the little girl had been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo and left unprotected by NATO and the United Nations. At present, Serbia and Kosovo are covered in snow, with temperatures down to minus 20 deg centigrade; that is to be expected each year in that part of Europe and is thus predictable. Indeed, it was predicted by the Select Committee on International Development in our report on Kosovo. The situation was not unforeseen.
The European Union imposed sanctions against Serbia during the bombing, including a ban on oil exports that it has steadfastly refused to lift since the bombing ceased. Council regulation No. 2111/1999 of 4 October confirmed the prohibition of the sale and supply of petroleum products.
The EU has knowingly deprived Serbia of the capacity to keep its people warm. It has thus endangered the lives of young children and the elderly by exposing them to hypothermia. That was a deliberate EU policy, supported by the UK Government. We have bombed Serbian power stations and oil refineries. By bombing the bridges, we have blocked the main supply line—the Danube.
The objective—although it was steadfastly denied was to depose President Milosevic and his party from office in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. However, the EU action has had the opposite effect. NATO and the EU are blamed for the suffering of all the people of Serbia and the estimated 900,000 refugees in Serbia-100,000 of whom have been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
Cynically—or perhaps from feelings of guilt—the EU decided to launch a programme entitled Energy for Democracy, supported by the UK. The programme is described as humanitarian and is thereby exempt from the EU's own sanctions.
I remind hon. Members that humanitarian aid must have two characteristics. The first is that it must be administered impartially to all people in need regardless of whom they support. Secondly, those who administer humanitarian aid must do so with the consent of all authorities on all sides of a dispute. The obvious example is the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross which, without such an agreement, would be unable to operate on both sides in a conflict or dispute.
One definition of the objective of humanitarian assistance states that it should be
"to prevent and alleviate human suffering, to protect life and health and ensure respect for the human being. This definition provides for protecting and re-establishing livelihoods, not just saving life … From this follows the principle of impartiality: humanitarian actors should not discriminate as to nationality,
238WH
race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions; resource allocation being guided solely on the basis of needs of individuals, prioritising the most urgent cases of distress."
The principle of independence follows from that:
"The ability of humanitarian organisations to operate legally and safely in a conflict situation is determined by their ability to demonstrate their independent character. Actual and perceived involvement of a donor government in the workings of international humanitarian organisations potentially compromises this independence."
We offend against those principles of humanitarian aid. In particular, the Energy for Democracy programme offends against them on almost every count. It aims to supply 350 tonnes of heating oil to two Serbian towns—Nis and Pirot. That was the first part of a 4.4 million euro project to supply the cities until April this year. The reason that those two cities were targeted was that their mayors did not support the Milosevic Government. NATO and the EU wanted to demonstrate to the people of those cities that NATO cared for them and that the alliance's quarrel was only with the Milosevic Government.
I might have some enthusiasm for the objective of subverting Milosevic, but that NATO action cannot be called humanitarian. It is partial and it is not administered with the agreement of the authorities in Serbia. It is certainly not impartial; nor is it independent.
Where does the money come from? After much research, I found that it was provided from the European development budget, to which the UK Government make a significant contribution—as the Chamber has already discussed this morning. The appropriation comes from a budget designed for the reconstruction of parts of former Yugoslavia—later Kosovo.
The appropriation of such money for bluntly and blatantly political purposes is almost certainly illegal. It will have to be referred to the Court of Auditors, which has, sadly, become accustomed to the gay abandon with which the European Commission spends our money on projects that are unauthorised by this Parliament or by the European Parliament.
If we are sincere about trying to help Yugoslavia in its reconstruction, we should ensure that all those who have suffered from the Milosevic regime and the NATO bombing have sufficient heating oil to keep them warm this winter. That would be a truly humanitarian and magnanimous gesture to the people of Serbia. It might begin to heal some of the wounds and begin the reconciliation and reconstruction necessary for the achievement of the just Balkan settlement for which our Prime Minister agreed to bomb Serbia—one of his major aims in the war against Serbia. However, this partial, illegal and cynical gesture of the Energy for Democracy programme is more likely to exacerbate the hatreds and jealousies within Serbia and against the EU and NATO.
I ask the Minister of State to answer the following questions. First, why have the Government not tried to lift the EU sanctions on heating oil supplies to Serbia? Is it because we are acting as the poodle of the United States in those matters?
Secondly, why have the Government agreed to break their own sanctions by supplying heating oil to Nis and Pirot? Thirdly, how can supplies of heating oil to those

239WH
cities be justified as humanitarian aid when no such supplies are provided to the rest of the Serb population and when they do not have the approval and agreement of the Serbian Government?
Fourthly, what assessment was made of the likely reaction of the Serbian Government of President Milosevic to the initiative? Fifthly, why did the United States refuse to support the Energy for Democracy scheme? Sixthly, how do the Government justify the use of aid money, voted for the reconstruction of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, for blatant, cynical, political blackmail?
The Government claim to have won the war against Serbia by bombing that country. They are certainly losing the peace by such ill-considered, blatantly political, possibly illegal schemes as the Energy for Democracy programme. A Government who were truly pursuing a humanitarian aim would support France, Greece, Italy and other EU nations in lifting EU sanctions for the whole of Serbia, and in permitting the supply of heating oil throughout Serbia on humanitarian grounds during the extreme weather conditions that are always experienced in the region at this time of year. That would prevent the black market and the entry to Serbia of Russian-supported oil supplies via Hungary and Romania. The distribution of those supplies is of course controlled by President Milosevic—thus increasing his grip on power and his ill-gotten wealth.
1.9 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for initiating the debate. I was tempted to say "again", because we discussed the matter during the debate on Kosovo in which our colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) also took part.
The hon. Gentleman is the most appropriate Member to raise matters of humanitarian aid and assistance and to remind us of what the term may mean in practice. He has a long and honourable record on, and experience in, overseas aid and development matters. He speaks on them with a disinterest and seriousness that sets an example so I take seriously his contribution to our deliberations on the topic. I shall do my best to reply to the 10 or more questions that he asked.
In this short debate, we do not need to go over the cause of the traumas in the Balkans or the role in Serbian history of Slobodan Milosevic. I want to approach the subject from another angle and to point out that, on the figures for gross domestic product, Serbia is the poorest country in the whole of Europe—it is now poorer than Albania. Given that Yugoslavia was one of the wealthiest countries in the socialist bloc in the 1980s, we must focus on what has happened, why it has happened and on the future and rebuilding. In that spirit, I shall try to address the issue of how people keep warm in winter and the relationship between fuel supplies and sanctions.
I want to say something elementary about the difference between the central and eastern European countries that emerged from the Soviet bloc in the first
240WH
half of the 1990s and Serbia under the direction of Milosevic. In a sense, the essential services, commodities and state monopolies were used to secure the loyalty of his key supporters in the Socialist party of Serbia, the SPS.
Let me provide a practical example. The present boss of Jugopetrol, which controls the import and distribution of oil and oil derivatives on a national basis is a man called Dragan Tomic. He is also the Speaker of the Serb Parliament and, of course, a key figure in the SPS. Basically, he has been put in charge of the oil industry as a reward for loyal service to Milosevic and he is now making—I dare suggest—massive profits from the sale of imported oil and petrol. He does not use the prescribed channels and state petrol stations, in which the price is set by the Government, but uses the black market to provide him with his profits. That is a key fact. The problems of the Serbian economy relate not just to analyses of economic mishandling, but to such direct manipulative interests.
In the short time that I have left, I shall discuss the Energy for Democracy programme. That European Union programme was first proposed by an independent group of Serb economists, the G-17 group, in the summer of 1999 in the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict. Its idea was for the EU to show its solidarity with the people of Serbia—as opposed to the regime—by donating mostly heating oil to Serbian towns, which were expected to struggle to provide sufficient heating for their citizens through the current winter. The idea was taken up by the member states of the EU and turned into an official EU programme in the autumn of 1999. The United Kingdom played a supportive role and it helped the G-17 group to visit several European capitals, including London, to explain and spell out its ideas. We have since supported that programme.
The programme began in November 1999 with the pilot project towns of Nis and Pirot, and I emphasise that it was a pilot. The towns have received regular tankers of heating oil since December and the EU is now switching to rail transport to improve the speed and reliability of the deliveries. Supply has been running behind schedule because of administrative difficulties, but, by the end of January, those towns had received more than 2,000 tonnes of heating oil.
One misunderstanding about the Energy for Democracy programme needs to be cleared up. It is not designed to compensate for a shortage of oil in Serbia; it is designed to compensate for a shortage of money to buy that oil. That difference is crucial. In other words, the municipal authorities that have been the beneficiaries of the Energy for Democracy programme have always been free to import oil and oil products from certain neighbouring countries or from further afield, but they have not had the money to do so. The programme involves the donation of heating oil.
Mr. Wells: The Minister referred to the towns' capacity to buy oil, but would they not have to buy it outside the European Union, because the EU has imposed sanctions against the supply of oil to Serbia? Is that not right?
Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the precise point, so I shall try to spell out where supplies

241WH
come from and where the EU anticipates that they will come from. I hope that that will become clear. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to press me on the matter, I shall be more than happy for him to intervene again.
The EU oil embargo on Serbia has been changed specifically to allow the sourcing of oil from EU countries for the Energy for Democracy programme. In practice, however, imports have all come from refineries in Macedonia. Had the municipal authorities been given adequate funding by central Government, they could simply have bought oil supplies from domestic suppliers or imported what they required for their needs from Macedonia or perhaps Bulgaria.
The hon. Gentleman asked on whose authority the EU introduced sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1998. It did so on its own authority using the established procedures of the EU common foreign and security policy and the competences vested in the EU by the treaty of Rome and subsequent treaties. The sanctions included the specific oil embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In September 1999, the oil embargo was lifted in respect of Montenegro and Kosovo.
From the very outset, a humanitarian exemption was written into the EU oil embargo. That still applies. In other words, any organisation that wants to import oil or oil products into Serbia from a member state of the EU may do so, having submitted an application to the European Commission explaining that the oil is for humanitarian purposes. I hope that that goes some way to answering the hon. Gentleman's question. Such imports have taken place in at least one case.
The Belgrade office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees applied to import 40,000 tonnes of heating oil from Germany, and this application was approved on humanitarian grounds. It is possible for oil to be bought from European countries, and approval is a relatively simple process. Any international humanitarian organisation operating in Serbia is free to follow that route. I hope that my answer goes some way to allaying the hon. Gentleman's worst fears. It can happen, it does happen and it can continue to happen.
I stress that the EU has not broken its own sanctions, as the hon. Gentleman put it. Apart from the humanitarian exemption that is written into the embargo, the EU has also changed the text of the oil embargo regulation to allow EU companies to supply oil under the Energy for Democracy programme. In practice, however, the heating oil supplied by the EU has been purchased from Macedonia for reasons of efficiency. Macedonia and other neighbouring countries, such as Bulgaria, do not have national restrictions on selling oil to Serbia. The EU oil embargo applies only to EU member states, and to those associate member states that choose to affiliate themselves to it.
The EU anticipated that the Energy for Democracy programme would be vulnerable to administrative obstruction by the Serbian authorities. That was the primary reason for beginning the programme with a pilot project of just two towns. As we suspected, the Serbian authorities made life as difficult as practically possible on the border, and we discussed that here in our previous debate on the subject. There were blockages, but they did not persist, not least because of local
242WH
popular pressure. The delay of more than two weeks that the first consignment suffered has not been repeated. The first trucks were greeted with cheering in Nis and Pirot, and Milosevic has not dared to make himself even more unpopular by restricting or blocking the import of heating oil—it is getting through.
I am glad to say that, contrary to some reports, the United States has offered political support for Energy for Democracy. Indeed, in the autumn Mrs. Albright mentioned in public that she hoped that the programme could be extended to the town of Cacak. The US has been supportive of the programme during the EU's discussions with the US and Yugoslav opposition in the so-called trilateral process. Cacak became the third town to benefit from the programme when Norway decided to support Energy for Democracy with a programme of deliveries of heating oil.
Apart from the Norwegian bilateral contribution, Energy for Democracy has been funded by the European Commission from the Obnova regulation budget, which exists to fund projects in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Obnova is not a budget for classic humanitarian aid, as it has been defined by the hon. Gentleman. The EU's aid programme in Serbia is run through the European Community humanitarian office in Belgrade, which has not been involved in Energy for Democracy. The humanitarian office is responsible for Serbia's and Montenegro's share of the total regional allocation for south-east Europe in 1999 of 378 million euros.
Energy for Democracy is humanitarian in motivation, but it is not classified as strict humanitarian aid, as the hon. Gentleman spelled out. Imports of heating oil by the municipalities in question are treated as straight commercial transactions. The municipalities pay the customs duties, and the external suppliers invoice the European Union direct. I am glad to say that the UK's Crown Agents have been involved in the logistics of operating Energy for Democracy.
The humanitarian dimension of the programme is obvious: the imports of heating oil have been used to keep residential accommodation, schools, hospitals and municipal facilities warm through the depths of the winter in Nis and Pirot. Not all dwellings in those towns are connected to the municipal heating system, but most citizens will still have benefited. I understand that the Norwegian programme in Cacak and the prospective EU programme in Kragujevac will concentrate on schools, hospitals and similar institutions. In an ideal world, we would be supplying fuel for warmth to the entire population of Serbia, but clearly we have to prioritise.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: How does one prioritise when a child is dying in a bombed-out concrete factory? How does one say that one town cannot have oil while another town can? That is not humanitarian, and I am shocked that my Government are going along with something as obscene as deciding who lives and who dies in Serbia.
Mr. Battle: I defer to my hon. Friend's insistence that we keep people's names and faces in front of us so that we do not make judgments that put people's lives on the line. However, there are practical problems.

243WH
Not all dwellings in my hon. Friend's town of Halifax have heating connected to a central system. That technical difference is important because we have chosen towns where an oil-fired municipal heating plant is the key source of heating. Unlike Britain, the former Soviet Union has combined heat and power systems that work. That means that if we put oil in the central boiler, all flats are heated. That is not the system in Britain, where we would have to heat houses and flats on an individual basis with a separate fire. Not every house has a chimney, so we could not supply coal to every house to keep it warm.
Technical challenges are posed by the heating systems, so there is not a deliberate decision about who lives and who dies. We have chosen towns where a working oil-fired municipal heating plant is the key source of heating or where other facilities need oil for generators. Provision is linked to the location of the generators; it is not done house by house.
There are three reasons why we have so far limited the programme also to municipalities run by the parties of the democratic opposition. First, they are much less likely to be corrupt than municipalities run by the SPS and its allies. Secondly, opposition-run municipalities have been the subject of systematic discrimination by the central Serbian authorities, which have limited their funds and done everything possible to damage their standing in the eyes of the electorate. Those towns are usually last on the list for the distribution of Serbian state oil supplies.
Thirdly, the regime-linked municipalities have largely refused to co-operate with Energy for Democracy. A questionnaire sent out by the Association of Free Towns and Municipalities asking for technical details of their heating systems for the Energy for Democracy programme was ignored by every SPS and allied town.
On the general international humanitarian effort in Serbia, I can confirm that the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the UNHCR, UNICEF and others are active in Serbia, with our support, along with numerous other charities and nongovernmental organisations. The Department for International Development works alongside and maintains close links with the UN agencies and other
244WH
bodies. The UNHCR has supplied some 40,000 tonnes of oil to Belgrade and the whole of Serbia, while Energy for Democracy has supplied 2,000 tonnes. The UNHCR has therefore been providing the bulk of the supplies. We have supported those programmes.
Mr. Wells: Why, then, do not our Government support the lifting of sanctions, at least on oil for heating, throughout Serbia?
Mr. Battle: The block sanctions remain for the whole of Serbia. This is an exception which means that we can get energy through, but we have to choose where it goes. I set out the three reasons why it is not apposite to send oil everywhere—it would be lost in the corrupt system and would not reach the people who need it, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax referred. That is why we focus supplies on two particular towns.
The EU General Affairs Council, which met on 24 January, concluded:
"In the light of the latest positive developments and of the outcome of the pilot project in Nis and Pirot, the Council invited the Commission to prepare the extension of the Energy for Democracy initiative, as suggested by Serbian opposition forces after the Berlin trilateral meeting of 17 December 1999."
As I said, the Commission plans to start with the town of Kragujevac. The other towns identified as immediate priorities are Novi Sad, Sombor, Subotica and Kraljevo.
The humanitarian exemptions written into the EU sanctions regime on Serbia and the EU's commitment to the Energy for Democracy programme have shown that we care about the fate of the ordinary people of Serbia and are not indifferent to their plight. Thankfully, the threatened humanitarian disaster did not transpire this winter—action was taken to pre-empt it—but we have no illusion about the economy of Serbia, which is in a bad state.
As I said at the outset, Serbia is now the poorest country in Europe. Living standards have plummeted. All that can start Serbia back on the path of economic recovery is a change in the regime and a strategy for the nation's well-being. There is not much evidence of that. Those factors were the source of the conflict in the first place. The Energy for Democracy programme is a small but serious effort to ensure that the poorest and hardest hit do not always pay the highest price.

Taiwan
1.30 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: At the outset I declare an interest as the co-chairman, along with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), of the all-party British-Taiwanese group. We are an active group. We have an excellent relationship with His Excellency the Taiwanese representative to the United Kingdom, Mr. Loui Tzen, and his colleagues in London.
Taiwan and the UK enjoy an excellent relationship. Taiwan has been and is a major investor in this country, locating some of the most modern industrial enterprises here. With such investment have come some of the most advanced technological developments and many jobs throughout the country. One has only to speak to hon. Members to hear of the respect in which those companies are held by their work forces and local communities.
There are excellent commercial and financial arrangements between our two countries: 80 per cent. of Taiwan's European investment is in the UK. The British-Taiwanese business council is a very active organisation which discusses trade between our two countries. It held a major conference in London in January. More than 70 constituencies contain a company or companies of Taiwanese origin. That shows Taiwan's involvement in this country.
Yesterday, I showed around the House a group of young Taiwanese diplomats who are on a year's study at Oxford. Given that there were no financial restrictions on their studies, they could have chosen to go to any country. Each year, a further 13,000 Taiwanese students study here.
Taiwan has a population of 21 million and one of the strongest economies in the world—at present, ranking 15th strongest. Against that background, it is appropriate to highlight the call on the British Government and their people to support Taiwan's application for observer status in the World Health Organisation.
As a major world economic power, Taiwan has an excellent health service. Its doctors and nurses have trained or studied in some of the world's major medical schools. One of the most modern hospitals in this country, St. George's, Tooting, in my constituency, was recently visited by the Taiwan Health Minister, himself a doctor. It soon became clear in discussions during that visit that Taiwan's wide range of medical and health services are equal to anything in the United Kingdom. Despite such quality, it is not a member of the World Health Organisation. Let us be frank, that is not because of its medical standards, but because of political attitudes. In my view and that of many others, that is totally unacceptable.
I chair the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In Strasbourg last week, we discussed a report on European health policy, which I have with me today. The debate highlighted how much the Council of Europe's 41 member states appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss relevant health issues and progress in treatment and research. Taiwan seeks
246WH
such involvement in WHO, which would enable its medical professionals to share their knowledge and skill with their international colleagues.
As Taiwan does not have WHO observer status, it cannot discuss wide-ranging and often complex technological developments or disease control with WHO members. It can neither obtain information on new health care and policies by working directly with WHO and its members nor take part in seminars or training programmes that are organised by WHO. How can that be realistic or fair?
Governments are not always those with skills for or the sole agents of world health developments. The medical profession uses its skills to build health policies, sustain health activity and broaden health strategies, which we all know are wide ranging and affected by economic and social behaviour and scientific and technological development. Countries such as Taiwan want to exchange skills and to learn about other countries' medical developments. Such exchange, above all else, is the role of the World Health Organisation—and why Taiwan seeks observer status in it.
This country enjoys excellent medical services, but we share our skills, learn from other countries and are actively involved in WHO. So many of the developments that we talk about have been made as a result of international co-operation. We have been able to progress our skills in the fields of primary health care, vaccines, AIDS and HIV, family planning, health insurance policy, health information and expenditure and immunisation through co-operation with other countries. We have been able to work together to promote health and the welfare of people not only in this country but world wide. That is what Taiwan seeks in observer status.
In recent years, Taiwan has sent more than 400 medical personnel, who work in different areas of health care, to countries such as the United States of America, the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand for advanced health and medical training. On that ground, Taiwan is more than worthy of WHO observer status.
The case that I have presented is very strong, but support for Taiwan's application can be found in organisations that are far more influential. A letter dated 12 January from Professor Vivienne Nathanson, head of the professional resources and research group of the British Medical Association, states:
"It would certainly be desirable for the medical profession in Taiwan to enjoy the advantages offered by links with the WHO, and we should therefore certainly support its application for observer status."
That is a very powerful endorsement which cannot easily be ignored.
The other comment I wish to quote is drawn from a document of the 106th Congress of the United States of America, dated 6 January 1999 and headed "Concerning the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization". It states:
"The World Health Organization … set forth in the first chapter of its charter the objective of attaining the highest possible level of health for all people … Taiwan's population of 21,000,000 people is larger than that of three-fourths of the member states already in the World Health Organization … Taiwan's achievements in the field of health are substantial, including one of the highest life expectancy levels in Asia, maternal and infant mortality rates comparable to those of western countries, the

247WH
eradication of such infectious diseases as cholera, smallpox, and the plague, and the first to be rid of polio and provide children with free hepatitis B vaccinations … The World Health Organization allows observers to participate in the activities of the organization … In light of all the benefits that Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization could bring to the state of health not only in Taiwan, but also regionally and globally, Taiwan and its 21,000,000 people should have appropriate and meaningful participation in the World Health Organization."
That is a powerful recommendation and expression of support for Taiwan.
What is the view of the British Government? We have a good relationship with Taiwan, whose people have brought great benefit to the United Kingdom. I have quoted correspondence that clearly supports Taiwan's request for observer status within WHO. Does the UK support that request? If we do, what shall we do to support Taiwan in the coming months before the next WHO meeting in the Geneva? If we do not, will my hon. Friend the Minister clearly state the reasons in his reply? In my view and that of many others, Taiwan should be supported in its request. Taiwan and its many friends here in the UK Parliament, in business and in the financial community in this country, will be greatly interested to learn of the views of the British Government and their attitude to Taiwan's request for observer status within WHO.
1.43 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for having raised the subject of Taiwan and its relationship with the World Health Organisation. He is well known and rightly respected for the disinterested fashion in which he draws attention to Taiwan and ensures that it is not forgotten by the House of Commons. His efforts and his serious interest in Taiwan are appreciated.
Although there are obvious political constraints on our relationship with Taiwan, I fully agree with my hon. Friend that we need to take Taiwan seriously. I assure the House that the Government do so and that we are looking for ways to strengthen and develop that relationship. I welcome and fully concur with my hon. Friend's remarks on the excellent state of relations between Taiwan and Britain. I hope that we can continue to build on that.
It is fair to say that the question of Taiwan's relationship with WHO, or with any other international organisation or element in the international community, cannot be considered without taking into account the complex issue of Taiwan's international status and the effect that that has on Taiwan's ability to play a fully recognised international role. The whole international community, not only the UK, are involved in that issue.
The House will be aware of the UK Government's formal policy on the status of Taiwan, which was laid down in 1972 when the UK upgraded relations with the People's Republic of China to ambassadorial level. In a joint communique agreed with the Chinese Government and announced on 13 March 1972, the UK Government of the day stated that the UK recognised the Government of the People's Republic of China as the
248WH
sole legal Government of China, and acknowledged the position of the People's Republic of China that Taiwan is a province of China. That remains our policy and forms the foundation of our dealings with Taiwan.
It follows that the UK has no formal political or diplomatic relations with Taiwan. That is not an unusual or unique position; it is shared by most other countries in the world, including our European partners and other close partners such as the United States. Although the precise formulation may differ slightly from one country to another, all have adopted a similar view and operate under similar constraints in their political dealings with Taiwan and its authorities. Only a handful of countries currently afford full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan as the "Republic of China". That position is unlikely to change significantly in the near future.
Taiwan's lack of widespread international recognition has obvious consequences for Taiwan's aspirations to membership of international organisations, especially those, such as WHO, whose membership is limited to states. As neither the UK nor the United Nations, where the People's Republic of China has had a seat since 1971, recognises Taiwan as a state, it follows that we cannot support Taiwan's membership of international organisations that only states may join.
However, we are keen to find creative ways in which Taiwan can play a role in the international community, consistent with our policy on recognition while allowing Taiwan's commercial and economic significance and its medical expertise to be properly reflected and embraced by the international community. For example, we look forward to Taiwan joining the World Trade Organisation, under the right terms, in its capacity as the customs territory of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu and Penghu.
Although there are constraints on the extent to which we can develop a political relationship with Taiwan, in many other respects—including, but not solely, trade and commerce—we are trying to build a strong and fruitful relationship with Taiwan and its people. As my hon. Friend said, Taiwan has a vibrant, powerful economy: it is the world's 14th largest trading entity and its transformation from an almost entirely agrarian economy to a leading industrial economy is phenomenal—one of the economic miracles of Asia. Its economy is shifting to new technologies to become a high-tech knowledge-driven economy of the future. Taiwan is at the leading edge.
We have a long history of trade and economic relations—and personal relations—with Taiwan. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has shown people around the House to make sure that those personal relationships deepen. That and his showing a representative of Taiwan around a hospital in his constituency are much appreciated. In the past decade, with one or two blips such as in 1998, during the Asian financial crisis, our exports to Taiwan have shown a steady upward trend. The 1999 figures will show a slight recovery: although they will not achieve the £1 billion of exports that we achieved in 1997, there may be a marginal increase on 1998 levels, which shows that the tide is turning.

249WH
Imports from Taiwan are now well over twice the level of exports and are rising steadily. As my hon. Friend spelt out, Taiwan is an important investor in the United Kingdom. We are pleased that Taiwan sees Britain as a gateway to Europe. We have attracted almost 85 per cent. of Taiwan's total investment in the European Union. Major developments include the Chung-hwa picture tubes factory in Scotland, which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October 1997. That brought 3,000 new jobs to Scotland and is the largest single Taiwanese investment in Europe. We want more investment from Taiwan. At the same time, we are substantial investors in Taiwan and we are working to support British investors there. The Government are keen to promote those activities. The British trade and cultural office in Taipei, our unofficial representation there, is specifically tasked to support British trading and business interests.
We encourage private ministerial visits to Taiwan by Ministers whose responsibilities lie in areas in which our links with Taiwan are strong. The Minister of State, Scotland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who was the Minister for Trade at the time, visited Taiwan last year. The present Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), will visit Taiwan in two weeks. We want to keep ministerial visits, although they are private, as continuous, close, personal links with Taiwan, and we hope that there will be many more such visits in both directions in the future.
The relationship is far more than simply commercial. It is not based solely on trade and commerce. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about medical exchanges and the development of Taiwan's medical contribution internationally. I welcome his words and look forward, as he does, to deepening those highly professional exchanges. I welcome the fact that the Taiwanese Minister for Health was one of the first senior Taiwanese visitors to this country since our Government took office.
Britain and Taiwan have much to learn from each other in medical practice and training, and that is precisely the sort of exchange that we should develop, so that we can learn from each other, to mutual benefit and the benefit of our planet. We are eager to promote people-to-people exchanges in education, culture, science and medicine.
As my hon. Friend said, Taiwan is a highly educated society which places a high value on education at all levels. We are pleased that the UK has been an important destination for Taiwanese people who want to study abroad. There are 15,000 Taiwanese studying at British universities and other institutes of further education in Britain. They are most welcome. They bring new perspectives to our institutions. They make a contribution; they do not just study, collect information and go away again. They help to transform the environment in which they are studying. According to the latest figures, more than 50,000 Taiwanese tourists came to Britain in 1997. Such exchanges are important and help to bind us together.
The key question posed by my hon. Friend was Taiwan's relationship with the World Health Organisation. He made an eloquent case expressing the desire of the Taiwanese authorities to gain observer status at WHO. It is no part of my purpose to deny the
250WH
strength of those feelings or to question them. We believe that, wherever possible and appropriate, Taiwan's aspirations should be considered sympathetically.
However, the political realities and China's likely objections cannot be ignored and wished away. Taiwan's health care is undoubtedly of a high calibre, as befits a highly developed economy such as that of Taiwan. It is therefore no surprise that the medical profession in Taiwan should seek to be associated with the World Health Organisation, one of the world's principal medical forums, and that there should be strong backing in parts of the international medical community for contacts with Taiwan. The House and my hon. Friend are aware of the practical problems.
I have outlined the problem of Taiwan's membership of international bodies whose membership is limited to states. One possible way forward that has been canvassed is for Taiwan to seek observer status. Some organisations, including some non-governmental organisations, are already observers. There is no formal mechanism whereby entities that aspire to such status may apply to become observers. I believe that I am correctly informed that Taiwan has not applied for such status.
I understand that the director general of WHO has discretion to confer observer status on a non-state entity where its participation would be non-controversial. She has not done so to date, but there is no harm in considering that as a possible way forward.
The only route to the attainment of observer status is for a proposal to be made in favour of the aspirant by a full member of the World Health Organisation at the annual meeting of the World Health Assembly. It is open to the Taiwanese authorities to pursue that route, as they have done for a number of years. Any application put before the assembly's general committee stands to undergo rigorous examination by all member Governments, including the Chinese. If Taiwan and China could agree between themselves on suitable conditions for Taiwan's entry, that would ease the process considerably.
I hope that I have made it clear in response to my hon. Friend's passionate and well-reasoned case that our Government are fully aware of the medical work undertaken in Taiwan, and of the importance that Taiwanese authorities attach to the possibility of Taiwan's playing an international role within WHO. We hope that a satisfactory solution can be found.
We cannot be starry-eyed and simply wish our way into the future. There are practical and political obstacles on the way, but we should do our best to set out the case and to enable negotiations to take place, so that the medical expertise that exists in Taiwan can be afforded its true status and recognised internationally, and so that Taiwan can make an international contribution, which could be to the benefit of the whole of humanity.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  A400M Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the UK-based companies with potential to benefit from contracts if the Airbus Military Company's A400M proposals are accepted by his Department; and if he will estimate how many jobs the project would create in the United Kingdom. [104420]

  Dr. Moonie
  BAE Systems, as one of the Airbus partners, would expect to play a significant role in the A400M programme if the Government were to select this aircraft as a solution to the RAF's Future Transport Aircraft (FTA) requirement. Beyond that, there is potentially large scope for UK aerospace suppliers to participate in the A400M programme. However, it would not be possible for me to list specific companies at this stage as the selection of suppliers would be properly a matter for the commercial judgment of Airbus Military (as Prime Contractor) during the aircraft development programme.

  We are taking account of employment forecasts for competing options for the FTA requirement. As the Minister for Competitiveness advised the hon. Gentleman, Official Report, 15 December 1999, column 208W, the FTA competition is as yet undecided and it would be inappropriate to publish information supplied by companies. I must therefore withhold commercially sensitive information under Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  ASTOR System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK-based companies will be contributing towards development of the Raytheon ASTOR system. [104408]

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

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the ASTOR programme. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Over 80 UK based companies will be involved in the ASTOR programme. The major companies being Raytheon Systems Limited (UK), BAe Systems, Short Brothers, Motorola UK, Marshall SV, Matra Marconi, Ultra, and Rolls Royce.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects the new Raytheon ASTOR system to be in service with the RAF. [104400]
  584W
  Dr. Moonie
  We expect the new Raytheon ASTOR system to be in service about 30 years.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects(a) the final delivery of the Raytheon ASTOR system to be made to the RAF and (b) the system to be in service. [104401]

  Dr. Moonie
  I expect delivery of the final Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR) air platform to be delivered in 2007, and the system's In-Service Date to be 2005.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals are currently being considered by his Department to help to sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub post offices. [105906]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given him on 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 519–20W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness.

  Hagglunds BV206 Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. [106151]

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

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Hagglunds BV206 vehicle has been in service with the Royal Marines for over ten years and no new vehicles of this type are being procured. However, the Defence Procurement Agency is currently in contract negotiations with Hagglunds for the procurement of an All Terrain Vehicle (Protected), known as (ATV(P)), for the Royal Marines. Once accepted into service, this vehicle will provide a protected manoeuvre capability additional to that of the BV206 vehicles. Since the price is still under negotiation, I am withholding information on the cost of this project in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to effective management and operations of the public service.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of installing the UKIVSC 501 satellite system on the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. [106153]

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

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost to the Ministry of Defence of installing the UK/VSC 501 satellite system on the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  585W
  The total procurement cost for the two UK/VSC 501 satellite communications terminals, each of which were installed in a MOD owned Hagglunds BV206, was just under £3.2m. This cost includes the procurement of spares, training, documentation and supporting infrastructure. The vehicles were delivered to the Royal Marines last April.

  Jaguar Reconnaissance Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of equipping the SEPECAT Jaguar reconnaissance aircraft with the Vicon 18 Series 601 GP (1) electro-optic pods; and how many aircraft will be fitted with the pods. [106155]

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

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of equipping the SEPECAT Jaguar reconnaissance aircraft with the Vicon 18 Series 601 GP(1) electro-optics pods, and how many aircraft will be fitted with the pods. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The cost of equipping the Jaguar GR3a reconnaissance aircraft with the Vicon 18 Series 601 GP(1) electro-optics pod is expected to be £19.2m. This covers the provision of 14 pods, 4 Ground Imagery Exploitation Systems, the integration of the pods onto the aircraft, clearance activities and project support.
  The 14 pods will be capable of being fitted to any single seat Jaguar GR3a aircraft.

  Type-45s
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the reasons which underlay his decision not to limit the equipment and systems for the Type 45 to the three former common new generation frigates partner contractors; and if he will make a statement; [107040]

  (2) who will have control of the equipment selection for the new Type 45 warship; and if he will make a statement; [107041]

  (3) what were the reasons involving the Horizon Programme which underlay the decision not to use a single prime contractor; and if he will make a statement. [107043]

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

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 February 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Type 45 destroyer and Horizon frigate programmes. These matters fall to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  We did not limit equipment and systems for the Type 45 to the three "CNGF" former partner contractors because there were elements in their design that were superfluous to UK requirements. For example, as I said in evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 16 June 1999, the unit production cost of an electronic warfare system for a national warship is planned to be about one third of that envisaged for the Horizon frigate.
  586W
  Nevertheless, as a consequence of GEC (Marconi)'s membership of the now disbanded Horizon International Joint Venture Company, BAE SYSTEMS is able to make maximum use of the work accomplished during the Horizon design definition phase and, as I said in my letter dated 10 January 2000, have indicated that they will make use of some 70% of the work done for the Horizon programme. It will be for BAE SYSTEMS, as the Prime Contractor for the Type 45 programme, to make many of the decisions on equipment selection for the Type 45. However, the Company will be required to demonstrate value for money through competitive procurement of equipment and systems for the ship and to show that the equipment selected provides the required capability. This will take account of competitions already undertaken for Horizon equipment whilst moving forward with the national programme at an affordable cost.
  With regard to your question concerning the continuing industrial difficulties with the Horizon Programme which underlay the decision not to use a single prime contractor, the information requested was given in the supplementary memorandum submitted by the MoD to the House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC), Session 1998/99:
  "The key difficulty in forming an effective industrial organisation centred on the selection of a Prime Contractor able to direct its subcontractors to the extent required to manage the overall risk. In essence, the very wide range of companies involved could not agree on one of them becoming an effective leader. This prevented the nomination of an empowered prime contractor taking full responsibility for the project, which is fundamental to best procurement principles." (HCDC's eighth report, session 1998/99 (page 54).

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military assistance he has given to the Sri Lankan Government during the last two years. [108014]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period 1 January 1998 to 31 January 2000 personnel from my Department have provided the following military assistance to the Sri Lankan Government:Assistance to the Sri Lankan Army in the setting up of a Command and Staff College and on syllabus development and training.
  Advice to the Sri Lankan Joint Operations Bureau on the concept and organisation of Joint Forces and Joint Service formations.
  Training and advice to the Sri Lankan Army Medical Corps on battlefield life saving measures.
  Advice to the Sri Lankan military on explosives ordnance disposal.
  Advice and engineering training on the C130 transport aircraft for 15 ground engineers and technicians from the Sri Lankan Air Force.

  Additionally, nine Sri Lankan military personnel have attended MOD-run professional courses in the UK. Courses attended are: The Royal Navy Young Officers Course, The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst Commissioning Course, The All Arms Drill Instructors Course, The RAF's Basic Instructional Techniques Course and The Royal College of Defence Studies Course.

  MOD funded the explosives ordnance disposal advice and part funded Sri Lankan attendance on the 1999 RCDS course. All other military assistance was funded either by the Sri Lankans or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by arm or corps(a) the intervals between

  587W
  emergency operational tours as at 1 July 1999 and (b) the proportionate manpower cuts taken by each arm or corps in the latest reorganisation of the Territorial Army. [107412]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: The average theoretical operational tour interval as at 1 July 1999 for those Arms and Corps for which figures are readily available are set out in the table. These figures reflect the high level of operational commitments that was being experienced at the time: this level of commitment has reduced significantly since then with the reductions in force levels in the Balkans. Figures for the other arms/corps are not routinely calculated.

  Arm/Corps

  Tour interval (months)

  Royal Armoured Corps

  12

  Royal Artillery

  18

  Royal Engineers

  7

  Royal Signals

  6

  Infantry

  15

  The following table shows the proportionate TA manpower reduction for the same arms/corps:

  Arm/Corps

  Manpower reduction (Percentage)

  Royal Armoured Corps

  49

  Royal Artillery

  25

  Royal Engineers

  51

  Royal Signals

  1—

  Infantry

  55

  1 No reduction

  RAF Future Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on the future strategic transport aircraft and tactical transport aircraft for the RAF. [104402]

  Dr. Moonie
  We hope to be in a position to make a decision on our Short Term Strategic Airlift programmes early this year.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the new year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum bonuses paid; and if he will make a statement. [104484]

  Dr. Moonie
  In addition to the normal bank holiday rates of double time, MOD civilian staff below the Senior Civil Service were entitled to claim an additional plain time rate for hours worked in a limited period either side of midnight on 31 December 1999, and also receive a lump sum payment of £100. It is too early to know how many staff will claim such payments or what the total cost will be but the numbers involved will only be a very small proportion of the Department's employees.

  Departmental Land (Access Rights)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights of access currently exist for walkers on his Department's land. [105498]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is a presumption of access to MOD land wherever this is consistent with military activities, the health and safety of the public, environmental and conservation considerations, and the interests of our tenants. There have been leaflets and publications available for some years, most notably the booklet "Walks on MOD Lands", giving information about access opportunities on the Defence Estate. A copy of this booklet will be placed in the Library of the House. My Department is working to improve both public access and the provision of information. The booklet is currently under review and a revision will be published later in the year. Work is also being undertaken to develop an access website.

  C-130J Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the trials of the C-130J transport aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [106156]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the votes and subheads for the funds which cover his Department's financial contribution to BBC World Service monitoring; and if he will make a statement on their purpose. [106863]

  Dr. Moonie
  BBC Monitoring provides a valued information service to Government. Rapid reporting of open source information from around the world is an important aspect of the work of the MOD and other parts of Government. The MOD contribution is 40 per cent. of BBC's Monitoring funding, and is included within the expenditure shown within Class VI, Vote 1, Part II, Section J of the MOD's Supply Estimates 1999–2000, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence above what level a saving from an individual efficiency measure must be reported to his Department by budget-holders. [107414]

  Mr. Spellar
  The normal delegations of financial authority to budget holders set reporting levels for expenditure not savings. There is no specific financial level of savings for which current individual efficiency measures must be reported to MOD HQ. Individual measures are reported if the budget holder considers them significant, in line with their delegated authority.

  With the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting in the MOD, Top Level Budget holders will in the future be required to report individual efficiency measures reducing expenditure by more than £0.5 million in any year compared to the previous year.

  Adventure Training
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the decision no longer to employ full-time civilian adventure training instructors for the Army in Germany following the 1998 Review of Adventure Training was scored as an efficiency savings measure for budget purposes. [107410]

  Mr. Spellar
  The arrangements for Adventurous Training in Germany have recently been restructured. The training has been more closely focused on military requirements and the number of individuals trained reduced. The facilities are now paid for entirely from public funds, rather than from a mix of public and non-public funds as previously. No efficiency savings have been scored as a result of these changes.

  Horizon Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the lessons learned which will be built into the Smart Procurement Initiative from the outcome of the Horizon Programme; and if he will make a statement. [107042]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to say that the principal "lessons learned" from the outcome of the Horizon programme covering procurement strategy, risk reduction, communication with industry at an early stage of the project, and affordability have already been built into the Smart Procurement Initiative, thus ensuring that they will be applied in all future circumstances. Other lessons included work share arrangements. The involvement of trans-national companies and OCCAR are likely to be helpful in dealing with work share issues. These types of issues will be taken into account as Smart Procurement Implementation progresses.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Governments and private companies were involved in the sale of land mines formerly held by UK armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [107272]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: All UK operational stocks of anti-personnel mines (APMs) as defined under the Ottawa Convention were destroyed by 19 October 1999 as the Convention required. None of these stocks were sold, either to Governments, or to private companies. Details of historical holdings of APMs by UK armed forces would not be available without disproportionate cost.

  RAF Expenditure
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on the RAF in the current financial year to date; and how much he plans to expend in the remainder of the financial year. [107599]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information cannot be provided in the requested format. Information is available for RAF Strike Command, RAF Personnel and Training Command and RAF Logistics Command and shows the spend reported up to 31 December 1999 is £2,868 million. The planned expenditure for the current financial year is approximately £4,160 million.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106232]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: There is no evidence of a successful incursion, from an external source, to any Departmental computer system during the past five years. There were two cases during 1999 of corruption of Websites holding Unclassified MOD information. Measures have been taken to secure both these sites. There are widespread and frequent probes of MOD firewalls connected to the Internet, which do not result in successful penetrations of MOD systems. There have, however, been 25 recorded instances during the past five years of internal incursions by MOD staff, none of which had any operational impact. Appropriate disciplinary measures were taken, as required, in each case.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106213]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: There have been no cases in the past five years in which MOD computers have been used to directly expedite a fraud against the MOD. There have been 18 cases where MOD computers have been used in support of fraudulent activities. There have been 594 reported cases of computer theft within the MOD over the past five years.

  Naval Ship Rules
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will result from switching to the Lloyd's Register Naval Ship Rules; and if he will make a statement. [108036]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is expected that Lloyd's Register's Naval Ship Rules will, by capitalising on the Rules for the design, construction and maintenance of commercial shipping, lead to savings in this area of at least £1 million per annum.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to improve the anticipated shortfall of personnel in the Army by 2005; what implications these will have on readiness; and if he will make a statement. [108035]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army is currently forecasting a return to a state of full manning by around April 2005. The current manning deficit is being tackled by a series of recruiting and retention-positive measures. These include significant improvements which have been made to the operational welfare package, a reduction in force deployments to both Bosnia and Kosovo, and the Learning Forces initiative. Welcome progress has also been made by the Services Families Task Force, which is addressing a variety of issues relating to military service that are of concern to Service personnel.

  Army Training Camp, Bramley
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the army training camp at Bramley, Basingstoke. [108067]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army has a continuing requirement for Bramley Training Area and there are no current plans for major development to the facility, or disposal of the site.

  Nancekuke
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 78W, on Nancekuke, what the scrap metal was composed of, in what quantity it was found and on what dates and what was the obsolete plant. [107634]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Documentary evidence states that the scrap metal consisted of decontaminated chemical plant, service pipework, cubicle fronts and structural steelwork. The actual quantities are unknown. It is considered that the majority of materials would have been dumped between the closure decision in 1976 and the vacation of the site by the Chemical Defence Establishment in 1978. I am not aware of any documentary evidence as to the nature of the `obsolete plant' referred to in the question.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 70W, on Nancekuke, if he will place in the Library a map indicating the exact locations of the mineshafts; and if all mineshafts were examined in 1991 by the National Rivers Authority. [107635]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: A copy of a map indicating the locations of the relevant mineshafts will be placed in the Library of the House. Water sampling was conducted by the National Rivers Authority between 1990 and 1992, and there is no evidence of mineshafts having been examined.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 454W, on departmental research contacts, if he will place a copy of the standard research contract in use by his Department in the Library. [107099]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: The Department does not use a standard research contract. Terms and conditions of contracts for research differ according to the work required.

  Standing Civilian Courts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average period which elapses between the commission of an offence and the date of the subsequent trial in standing civilian courts. [107870]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]:

  The Naval Service
  The Naval Service does not hold civilian standing courts.
  592W
  The Army
  The average period between an offence being committed and the date of a trial in a subsequent standing civilian court is eight months for 1st hearing (a guilty plea) and 10 months for 2nd hearing (not guilty plea).

  The RAF
  The average period between an offence being committed and the date of a trial in a subsequent standing civilian court is six months for 1st hearing (guilty plea) and nine months for 2nd hearing (not guilty plea).

  Chinook MK2
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the helicopter Chinook MK2 was subjected to a full vehicle electro-magnetic interference test using the radio environmental generator by Boscombe Down as part of its CIA release trials in January 1994. [108052]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes.

  Vehicle Maintenance
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of maintenance man-hours per driving hour for(a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger 1, (c) Challenger 2, (d) Saxon variants, (e) AVF 430 variants, (f) Sabre, (g) Striker, (h) Scimitar, (i) Spartan, (j) Sultan, (k) Samaritan and (l) Samson in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [107548]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Driver hours are not used as currency for measuring equipment usage. Usage is controlled through activity set by annual track mileage allocations for each vehicle type. Maintenance in the Land environment is different from that in, for example, the Air environment where they use largely scheduled maintenance based on flying hours. Maintenance of Army tanks and vehicles is achieved through a mix of planned maintenance (servicing based on time and mileage) and reactive repair maintenance. The latter regime is the larger element.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Dancing
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for the implementation of his proposal to legalise Sunday dancing. [107613]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 17 January, we laid before Parliament a draft Deregulation Order to remove the ban on commercial dancing on Sundays. The draft Order is now subject to the usual process of scrutiny by the Parliamentary Deregulation Committees, and approval by both Houses. That process is likely to take until the summer. If approved, the ban on Sunday dancing would be lifted three months later, to allow time for applications to trade on Sundays to be heard.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 with respect to circus animals; and if he will make a statement. [107731]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have made no formal assessment of the effectiveness of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 with regard to circus animals. In 1998, there were 1,107 prosecutions made under the Act, but these figures do not show details of the animals involved or the profession of the defendants. The figures do, however, confirm that the Act—which covers all domestic and captive animals—is frequently used, and we have been given no reason to doubt its general effectiveness.

  Circus animals, when being trained and performing, have additional protection against cruelty under the provisions of the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.

  Anti-Irish Discrimination
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to tackle anti-Irish discrimination. [107588]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I should make it clear that Irish people already receive the protection that current legislation provides. The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful for anyone to discriminate against another on ethnic grounds. Successful complaints in relation to discrimination against the Irish have been brought by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) resulting in compensation payments and agreements by organisations to change their practices. A Bill currently before Parliament will amend the 1976 Act by extending it to the functions of public authorities not currently covered by the Act. The Bill will also put a statutory duty on public authorities to promote racial equality.

  It is also an offence to incite ethnic hatred against the Irish community by virtue of part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Racist violence and harassment towards members of the Irish community falls under the new racially aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  The Government are also addressing the specific issues of discrimination and disadvantage faced by some sections of the Irish community. These were highlighted in the CRE's Report, "Discrimination and the Irish Community in Britain" which has been the subject of a number of discussions which I and my colleagues across Whitehall have been having with the Irish Ambassador and representatives from Irish organisations.

  One of the major issues was a recommendation that there should be a separate Irish category in the ethnic origin question in the next Census in 2001. The Draft Census Order for England and Wales was laid before Parliament on Monday 10 January. It includes an ethnicity question with a category for "Irish" cultural background in the "White" section.

  We will continue to look carefully at other concerns to ensure that the Irish community has full access to the rights and opportunities.

  WRVS (Prisons)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons in which the WRVS deliver services, and the nature of the services. [107580]

  Mr. Boateng
  The invaluable support which the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS) offers to the Prison Service covers a large part of the prison estate with around a hundred prisons benefiting from the work of WRVS volunteers. The services provided by the WRVS include the provision of supervision for children's visits to parents in prisons; the running of prison visitors' centres and their tea bars; and the development of toy libraries for visiting children. In view of the differing needs of prisons, the development of partnerships with the WRVS is undertaken by individual establishments. Detailed information about the use of volunteers in prisons is not available centrally, however, a survey of all prisons is being undertaken with a view to establishing more specific information about their use of volunteers.

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use a computerised booking system for visits to prisoners. [107581]

  Mr. Boateng
  The use of a computerised booking system will be looked at during the course of a review of visits policy. Its feasibility will also be examined as part of the Prison Service public/private sector partnership project, Quantam, which aims to deliver improved services through the effective use of information technology.

  Prisoners (Money)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the permitted methods for families to send money to prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [107579]

  Mr. Boateng
  Families can send money to prisoners by cheque, postal order or cash. Under Prison Rule 43(3), prisoners' money must be held in an account under the control of the governor. Postal orders and cheques therefore, should be made payable to the governor of the prison and the sender of the money must always be identified.

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were prosecuted for offences in connection with child pornography on the internet in each year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [107574]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Offences involving child pornography on the internet would be prosecuted under either section 1 and section 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 as amended or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended.
  595W
  However, court proceedings data received centrally under this legislation do not specify the type of medium used.

  Number of persons prosecuted at magistrates courts for child pornography offences, England and Wales, 1994–98

  Offence

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Take, or make indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children1

  40

  53

  80

  111

  116

  Possession of an indecent photograph, or pseudo-photograph, of a child2

  53

  60

  125

  124

  167

  1 Protection of Children Act 1978 section 1, section 6 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 84

  2 Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 160 as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sections 84(4) and 86(1)

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations lay behind his decision to include in the membership of the inquiry into the economic impact of fox hunting individuals with a record of support for fox hunting. [107618]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on 1 February 2000,Official Report, columns 504–06W. The members of the inquiry team were recommended on the basis of their knowledge and expertise. They have been appointed to provide a view on the issues before the Committee. These extend beyond the economic impact of hunting with dogs.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were tagged in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; and what number and percentage broke the terms of their tagging order. [107617]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the period from 28 January 1999 to 26 January 2000, a total of 19,164 persons were subject to a curfew with electronic monitoring. Of these, 16,242 were released from prison on Home Detention Curfew under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The remaining 2,922 were monitored under a range of other provisions.

  As of 26 January, of the 16,242 offenders placed on the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme, 766 have had their licences revoked by the Secretary of State and a further 41 have been referred to the courts either by the Probation Service or the police for breach action (807 in total, amounting to 5 per cent. of all offenders placed on HDC).

  Of the 766 offenders whose licences have been revoked, in 517 cases the offender had been in breach of the curfew conditions, in 226 cases it was no longer possible to monitor the offender's whereabouts electronically, in seven cases the offender was deemed to present a risk of serious harm and in 16 cases the licence was revoked under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 following a breach of the non-curfew conditions of the licence.

  Of the 2,922 persons monitored under the other provisions, a total of 353 (12 per cent.) have had their curfew order or curfew condition revoked by the courts. Information on the reason for the revocation is not centrally available.
  596W
  The table shows the number of persons prosecuted under the above legislation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what offences were committed by prisoners released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme who re-offended while on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [108098]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 31 January 2000, the Prison Service had received notification of 174 curfewees who had been charged with an offence committed while subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme. A breakdown of the offences committed by these curfewees is shown in the table.

  This breakdown has been prepared from information supplied by police forces and drawn from the police national computer. Further analysis of re-offending by those subject to home detention curfew is currently underway as part of a long term evaluation of the scheme, including the procedures for notification of further charges to the Prison Service by the police.

  Overall, the Home Detention Curfew scheme has been a success, with 95 per cent. of curfewees completing their period of curfew licence. However, we are not complacent about any re-offending on curfew and the scheme is strictly enforced. Where a prisoner does commit a further offence while subject to curfew, he or she is in breach of their licence conditions, and may be recalled to prison, in addition to the possibility of additional sentence for the new offence.

  Offences curfewees charged with while on home detention curfew

  Offence type

  Number

  Burglary, theft and shoplifting (including Taking without consent and taking and driving away)

  62

  Assault

  31

  Driving and traffic offences

  15

  Breach of the peace (including drunk and disorderly)

  14

  Drug offences

  13

  Handling stolen goods/deception

  10

  Criminal damage

  10

  Threatening behaviour

  8

  Breach of a court injunction or restraining order

  3

  Possession of an offensive weapon

  3

  Harassment

  1

  Going equipped

  1

  False imprisonment

  1

  Arson

  1

  Indecent exposure

  1

  Total

  174

  Note:

  Where a curfewee was charged with more than one offence, they appear in the table next to the most serious offence. The table excludes cases where, following initial notification, the Prison Service was informed that charges had been withdrawn.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were successfully brought against drivers who caused road traffic accidents while at work in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [107658]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available as the circumstances of the offence and the employment status of the offender are not collected centrally.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide funds for the provision of accommodation at Chelmsford Prison to enable a full search of visitors suspected of possessing drugs. [107726]

  Mr. Boateng
  Visitors to Chelmsford prison are subject to a "pat-down" search and must pass through an X-ray portal. A passive drug detection dog is deployed. Visitors may not take property into the visits area and lockers are provided for bags and other possessions. Any items to be handed in to prisoners are X-rayed.

  There are no plans to provide facilities for strip-searching of visitors at Chelmsford. Capital funding for the Prison Service is limited and other projects linked to

  Decisions 1 made under the backlog clearance exercise on applications 2 lodged in the United Kingdom, up to the end of December 1995 January to December 1999

  Number of principal applicants

  Decisions on applications made between July 1993 and 31 December 1995

  Decisions on applications made prior to July 1993

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain

  Refused asylum and ELR after full consideration

  Refused on non-compliance grounds 3

  Granted exceptional leave with immediate settlement

  Refused on non-compliance grounds under backlog criteria 3

  January

  —

  —

  —

  —

  420

  —

  February

  —

  5

  —

  —

  525

  —

  March

  20

  360

  *

  *

  535

  5

  April

  145

  285

  5

  —

  575

  —

  May

  435

  225

  —

  20

  490

  —

  June

  175

  275

  —

  60

  755

  —

  July

  45

  445

  *

  80

  790

  —

  August

  45

  635

  5

  225

  700

  30

  September

  35

  365

  *

  190

  510

  215

  October

  45

  540

  —

  100

  205

  140

  November

  35

  680

  *

  75

  *

  —

  December

  45

  840

  *

  65

  30

  —

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2

  2 Excluding dependants

  3 Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  Immigration Appeals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has, in the light of the judgment in the case of R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex-Parte Ali, to review his policy of refusing to accept recommendations by immigration appellate authority adjudicators when an appeal is dismissed. [107433]
  598W
  the provision of places and the maintenance of security have priority.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and refugees are residing in the Eastbourne area. [107600]

  Mrs. Roche
  This information is not available. Central Government do not keep records of the number of asylum seekers residing in a particular location.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time taken to determine asylum applications from asylum seekers who submitted their applications in 1991. [107294]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is estimated that the average length of time taken to reach an initial decision on an asylum application lodged in 1991 was 25 months.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions have been made to date as a result of the measures announced in the White Paper, "Fairer Faster and Firmer", on asylum applications made(a) between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 and (b) before 1 July 1993; and how many of these resulted in (i) a grant of asylum, (ii) exceptional leave to remain and (iii) refusal. [107109]

  Mrs. Roche
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Mrs. Roche
  It is not our policy to refuse to accept recommendations made by adjudicators in dismissed or withdrawn appeals. We will act on such recommendations where the written determination discloses clear exceptional compassionate circumstances which have not previously been considered and which would merit an exercise of discretion outside the Immigration Rules. We have no plans to review this policy following the judgment in the case of R.v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex-Parte Ali.

  Crown Court Appeals
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his intention to allow prosecution and defence to make oral representations in open court during an appeal against magistrates decision on mode of trial under his proposal to restrict the right to elect trial by jury; [108102]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of an appeal to the Crown Court against magistrates decision as to mode of trial, under his proposals to restrict the right to trial by jury; [108100]

  (3) further to his answer of 27 January 2000, Official Report, column 250W, on Crown Court appeals, what his estimate is of the number of defendants who would appeal to the Crown Court against magistrates decisions as to mode of trial each year under his proposals; and what assumptions underlie that estimate. [108151]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government believe that most of these appeals could be determined very quickly on the basis of the papers by a single judge. However, they intend to give the judge the power to permit oral representations to be made to him by both the prosecution and defence if he considers it necessary in the interests of justice to do so. It is estimated that a paper based appeal to the Crown Court would cost £90 and an oral appeal would cost an additional £182. It is assumed that 3,900 or 25 per cent. of defendants would appeal.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department will monitor the(a) number, (b) cost and (c) effectiveness of the anti-social behaviour orders. [107352]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are in the process of setting up arrangements for the courts to monitor the number of anti-social behaviour orders granted in their area and to provide us with a quarterly return. We are committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the provision once it has been in force for two years. I will ensure that this research also looks into cost issues.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Schengen Agreement. [107503]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Schengen acquis has now been incorporated into European Union structures in accordance with the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The acquis continues to operate as between signatory states. The United Kingdom submitted a formal application to participate in parts of the Schengen acquis on 20 May 1999, which is still under consideration.

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the enforcement of the Government's policy on seizure and pursuit of criminal assets. [106589]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Government are determined to ensure that criminals do not keep their ill-gotten gains. The third report of the Home Office Working Group on 600W
  Confiscation—published in November 1989—proposed a range of measures to tighten up the enforcement of criminal confiscation orders. Since the Working Group reported, the Government have been considering more widely whether some confiscation and forfeiture functions, including the enforcement of confiscation orders, might be operated more effectively by a national confiscation agency. In the autumn, the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Mr. McCartney), to act as sponsor Minister for a project in the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit to consider the role that following the money trail and seizing criminal assets can play in the fight against crime and how to maximise the effective use of these tools. The Performance and Innovation Unit is expected to report in the spring and a White Paper proposing comprehensive action against financial crime to issue shortly thereafter.

  Kosovar Refugees
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 140W, on Kosovar refugees, if he will update the figures provided in his answer; how many of the 4,346 Kosovar refugees admitted to the United Kingdom under the UNHCR Humanitarian Evacuation Programme have left the United Kingdom voluntarily; and what action he intends to take in respect of those who have not yet left the United Kingdom to return to Kosovo. [108120]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information provided in my reply on 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 140W, on nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the latest available.

  As at 31 January, 1,570 Kosovans had returned. Of those 182 had left under the 'explore and prepare programme'.

  All the evacuees were given 12 months' Exceptional Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom and will not have their stay curtailed. We have made clear that there will not be a general extension of leave for those granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) under the Kosovan concession and Kosovans are expected to make arrangements to leave once their current leave to remain expires.

  The voluntary return programme from the United Kingdom began on 26 July 1999 and is open to Kosovans who arrived under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme and independent arrivals. Returnees are provided with the necessary travel documentation to enable them to travel under the arrangements put in place by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The Government are also running an Explore and Prepare scheme to enable heads of households and community leaders with ELR to return to Kosovo to make advance preparations for the permanent return of their families. We expect a large return this spring and are working to ensure that it comes about.

  Operation Runacre
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the negligent discharge of a police firearm on 20 January
  601W
  1998 in the course of Operation Runacre, stating when it was first officially reported and by whom; and what subsequent investigation was carried out into it. [106712]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Metropolitan Police that an allegation concerning a negligent discharge of a firearm was first made anonymously. This was investigated by the Metropolitan Police's Complaints Investigation Bureau a few days after the incident, and the investigation concluded that no discharge had occurred. Since then, additional allegations have been made and the incident is being reinvestigated by the Criminal Investigation Bureau.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many undercover police operations investigating the use or supply of illegal drugs took place in prison establishments in each of the past two years; if the prison authorities were notified in advance and if(a) use and (b) supply was detected. [107929]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are occasions when, at the request of the police, or other investigatory authority, approval is granted for an undercover operation to be conducted within a prison. There were eight such operations in 1998 and 16 in 1999. All these operations took place with approval from Prison Service headquarters and the prior knowledge of the local prison authorities. Two of the above operations related to the supply of drugs within the prisons concerned but the majority related to the large scale supply of illegal drugs outside prison. The outcome of these operations is not known to the prison authorities.

  There will also have been a number of operations conducted locally to each prison involving co-operation between the local police and the prison in relation to the supplying of illegal drugs into that prison. Information concerning these operations is not collated centrally but it is known that in the 12 months ending 31 December 1999, 823 visitors to prison were arrested attempting to bring drugs into prisons.

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue further guidance regarding the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. [107865]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 512W.

  Immigration
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inquiries have been completed into the effectiveness of immigration controls and the entry of foreign nationals into the UK who have been investigated for war crimes; and if he will make a statement. [108083]

  Mrs. Roche
  Those convicted or suspected of war crimes may be prevented from entering the United Kingdom in accordance with the powers in Rule 320 of the Immigration Rules. We are considering the scope for 602W
  obtaining better information on those who may be war criminals so that those powers can be used to best effect. This review is not yet completed.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fiat Applications
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many applications have been made to him in each of the last three years for his fiat; in respect of what proceedings such applications were made; and in how many and in what percentage of such cases in each category he(a) granted and (b) withheld his consent. [107831]

  The Solicitor-General
  The information requested could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. Statistics are not maintained. It is estimated that the information is contained in many different files, catalogued in a number of different series. For example, in criminal cases, consents to prosecution cover a wide range of criminal offences. There are also fiats which relate to civil proceedings. The work involved in providing an accurate answer would breach the established limits for the amount of work that should be undertaken in answering parliamentary questions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Human Genome Project
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to ensure a common approach between the USA, the UK and the rest of the European Union to patents arising from the human genome project. [106603]

  Ms Hewitt
  The public and charitable funders of the international human genome project have agreed that they will release the gene sequence information they generate as quickly as possible; and they will not patent that information. The Government strongly support this approach as it allows maximum exploitation by public and private sector researchers of the data generated. Nonetheless, translating fundamental genome sequence information into new gene-based diagnostics and therapeutics will, in many circumstances, involve sufficient innovation to justify intellectual property protection.

  The EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, which will come into force later this year, harmonises national patent laws within Europe. There are certain global norms, upon which the EU system is based, which are followed by other national authorities, including those of the United States. It is a matter solely for the national authorities to interpret these criteria in relation to applications for patents, including those concerning the human genome.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Standard Individual Export Licences have been issued to(a) Sri Lanka and (b) Colombia covering ratings (i) ML1, (ii) ML2, (iii) ML3, (iv) ML11 and (v) 1C350 since 31 December 1997. [107518]
  603W
  Dr. Howells
  Details of all SIELs and OIELs issued between 1 January and 31 December 1998 were set out in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House.

  As regards export licences granted between 1 January 1999 and 24 January 2000, the Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Twenty-six Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Sri Lanka of goods with the ratings ML1, ML2, ML3, ML11 and 1C350; two such licences were issued for the export of such goods to Colombia.

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 January 1999 and 24 January 2000 covering exports to Sri Lanka or Columbia

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued to Sri Lanka covering goods with this rating

  Number of SIELs issued to Colombia covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  5

  1

  ML2

  5

  0

  ML3

  6

  0

  ML11

  5

  1

  1C350

  5

  0

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

  Utilities Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish draft guidance under Clauses 9 and 13 of the Utilities Bill. [107665]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: I intend to publish a preliminary draft of the social and environmental guidance for the energy sector provided for under Clauses 9 and 13 of the Utilities Bill shortly.

  TransTec
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the inquiry he has commissioned into TransTec will cover the decision by Ford UK to execute their penalty clauses. [107875]

  Mr. Byers
  The conduct of the inspection is a matter for the independent inspectors.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has made to ensure that the current inquiry into TransTec does not prevent its sale as a going concern. [108048]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: Any sale of TransTec is a matter for the administrative receivers. The inspection should not affect any commercial arrangements being made by them.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has made to minimise the impact on creditors, suppliers and employees of the current inquiry into TransTec. [108049]
  604W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: There is no reason why the inspection, as such, should have any impact on creditors, suppliers and employees.

  Post Office Smart Card
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Post Office management on the research and development needed for the production of a smart card. [108051]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: My right hon. Friend and I maintain an ongoing dialogue with the Post Office Board on the development of the Horizon project including the use of smart card technology.

  Post Office (ACT)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department last had discussions with Post Office management on the subject of automated credit transfer of the benefits business. [108050]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent discussion with Post Office management about a wide range of issues including the Horizon project to automate the post office network and the planned migration of payment of benefits from order books and girocheques to an automated credit transfer system.

  Regional Development Funds
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues about Government plans to meet their obligations in the United Kingdom's European Union Objective 1 regions. [106590]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with ministerial colleagues on various aspects of the European structural funds.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 572W, on departmental research contracts, if he will (a) state total expenditure on research let by his Department since May 1997 and (b) list the titles of all research contracts let by his Department during 1999 and costing £20,000 or more, stating what is the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (ii) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments; and if he will place a copy of the standard research contract currently in use by his Department in the Library. [107094]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: The 1999 Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology shows total extramural

  605W
  expenditure on research and development by the Department of Trade and Industry for the last two financial years as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  276.9

  1998–99

  1259.2

  1 Estimated outturn

  In respect of (b), this information would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  A copy of the Department's standard terms and conditions of contract for services has been placed in the Library of the House. These terms and conditions are not specific to research contracts and do not deal with the handling of research results. The terms and conditions agreed may vary to some extent depending on the contract in question. However, as a general rule, the Department actively encourages publication of research it has funded.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what amount, expressed in terms of megawatts, the generators of electricity would have to be reduced in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the equivalent required by the climate change levy. [107919]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The climate change levy is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 2MtC a year, before including the effect of negotiated agreements. If a 2MtC saving were to be brought about through reductions in electricity generation, this could be achieved either through a reduction of 21 terawatt hours in gas fired generation or 9 terawatt hours in coal fired generation. This would be broadly equivalent to the loss of all output from 3000MW of gas fired plant otherwise operating at a load factor of 80 per cent., or 2000MW of coal fired plant operating at just over 50 per cent. load factor.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will ensure that authorisation of a parent or guardian is needed before children under the age of 16 years enter into financial agreements with mobile phone companies; [107567]

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to provide for a parent's or guardian's authorisation before children under the age of 16 years enter into a contract with mobile phone companies. [107652]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government do not believe that specific regulation is desirable to prevent those under sixteen years of age from entering into a contract for a mobile phone. It is very unlikely that a consumer credit agreement entered into by person under the age of eighteen, for the purposes of a mobile phone contract, would be enforceable against that person. This is no doubt the reason why operators require a person to be over 18 before they can sign up a mobile contract.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to promote trade between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. [107589]
  606W
  Mr. Caborn
  The services of British Trade International are available to exporters to the Republic of Ireland as they are to exporters to other Western European countries. Activities include the Export Explorer scheme to encourage first-time exporters to visit the Republic, an export promoter to inform companies of the opportunities in the market and encourage them to trade with the Republic and sectoral activities such as the provision of information stands at trade fairs in Ireland.

  Internet
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to raise public awareness of the role of the Internet Watch Foundation to investigate alleged pornographic materials; and if he will make a statement. [107573]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are continuing to support the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), and both Alex Allan, the e-envoy, and I attended its recent re-launch.

  Following a recommendation in a recent report, "Review of the Internet Watch Foundation", the IWF is currently pressing Internet Service Providers to put links to the IWF on their sites, in order to make it more visible and accessible to their users. The Government are also working at a European level to promote the work that the IWF has done as a model for the rest of the world.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Internet Watch Foundation in implementing the recommendations of the Department of Trade and Industry/Home Office report entitled Review of the Internet Watch Foundation. [107572]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has made good progress towards implementing the report's recommendations. Its organisational structure has been revised, as the new chair, Roger Darlington, announced at the IWF re-launch on 25 January. As part of the extended remit announced at the relaunch, the IWF has undertaken a review of the resources required for the hotlines, and extended its work to cover racism on the internet. It is also continuing to participate in developing content filtering and labelling schemes.

  Mozambique (Coal)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the final destination of coal being imparted from Mozambique; who is the purchaser; and what estimate he has made of the effect of the imports on employment among mine workers. [107594]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information is not collected on the final destination of coal imported into the United Kingdom. Figures for 1999 as a whole are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of 1999 it is estimated that 19,000 tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom from Mozambique—around 0.1 per cent. of total coal imported during the same period. No estimates have been made of the effects of the imports of coal from Mozambique on employment among mine workers.

  Coal Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2000,
  607W
  Official Report, column 521W, what has been the average proportion of compensation paid to successful claims on coal miners' compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, which relates to general damages for pain suffering and loss of amenity. [107175]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Of the 1,047 claims settled to date the vast majority have been on the basis of a claimant electing to accept an expedited payment following screening spirometry rather than proceeding through a full medical assessment. Such payments are not broken down separately into general and special damages. Nine claims have been settled to date where general and special damages have been separately assessed. The average proportion of compensation paid that relate to general damages, in these cases, is 53 per cent.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which other EU member states provide(a) paid and (b) unpaid parental leave; and if he will make a statement about paid parental leave. [108111]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  From the information that we hold, it appears that some form of payment is provided in Italy, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and Luxembourg during parental leave, subject to each member state's qualifying conditions.

  There does not appear to be any universal provision for payment in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland or the Netherlands.

  We have introduced unpaid parental leave in line with the agreement concluded by the social partners and our commitment in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper. Our task now is to monitor the take-up, impact and effectiveness of the new right, which will help to inform future thinking on parental leave.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106295]

  Mr. Byers
  This Government are keen to hear what people have to say about their new proposals and policies. My Department has a broad range of responsibilities and interacts directly with the business community and many other interest groups. We consult widely on many issues, using a range of different mechanisms depending on the subject matter and interest groups involved. I regard this as an important aspect of the modernising government initiative. Comprehensive and detailed information in the form requested is, however, not held centrally and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Maintained Schools
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information his Department collects on the number of pupils attending each maintained school in England and Wales; if this information is held centrally; and if it is made available to the public. [107025]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For England, the most comprehensive source of information about the number of pupils in maintained schools is that derived from returns made by schools to the Department in January. The annual school Performance Tables (Secondary and Primary) publish, for each school in the tables, the total number of pupils of all ages on the school register in January. This information has been checked with the individual schools as part of the Performances Tables checking exercise.

  Matters relating to the collection and release of pupil data in maintained schools in Wales is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education for Wales.

  Durham LEA
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the aggregate schools budget for Durham Local Education Authority in(a) 1998–99 and (b) each of the previous four years. [108010]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Aggregate Schools Budgets (ASB) for Durham Local Education Authority in 1998–99 and the previous four years are as shown in the table. Figures up to 1996–97 are not comparable with those for later years because of local government re-organisation.

  £ million

  1998–99

  144.4

  1997–98

  138.4

  1996–97

  159.6

  1995–96

  154.2

  1994–95

  152.3

  Standards Fund Grants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many bids for standards fund grants have been received for 2000–01, broken down by category of grant and by local education authority; [108070]

  (2) how many bids for standards fund grants were received in 1999–2000, broken down by category of grant and by local education authority; and how many allocations of grant were taken up in each category. [108071]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: The information requested is currently being collected and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers took early retirement in each of the last five years. [108011]
  609W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers retiring early from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in England and Wales under the premature or ill-health retirement arrangements in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Financial year

  Premature 1

  Ill-health 2

  1994–95

  7,660

  5,290

  1995–96

  9,080

  5,190

  1996–97

  10,730

  5,400

  1997–98

  12,600

  3,640

  1998–993

  2,520

  2,500

  1 Since September 1997 the additional cost of premature retirement has been borne by the employer rather than the Teachers' Pension Scheme.

  2 Changes in the statutory regulations governing ill-health retirements came into force in April 1997. To qualify for ill-health retirement benefits since April 1997 a teacher must be regarded as permanently unfit to teach.

  3 1998–99 data are provisional.

  Youth Support Service
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will be publishing details about the proposed youth support service. [108603]

  Mr. Wicks
  I am pleased to announce that we will publish tomorrow a policy document which sets out the Connexions strategy designed to raise educational achievement for all teenagers and how we envisage the new youth support service will operate. This service, outlined in the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed", will be called the "Connexions Service". Copies of the document will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office at 9 a.m. on 3 February. Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  We will be publishing a more detailed Connexions Service Prospectus and Specification in the spring.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the National Lottery funded school sport co-ordinators will be in post. [107163]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The aim is that the first tranche of school sport co-ordinators should be in post during the autumn term 2000.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Street Lighting
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding provision he has made to local authorities for the urgent replacement of lighting columns which are in a critical condition within the United Kingdom in the last twelve months. [107370]

  Mr. Hill
  Some central Government funding is available to local authorities for new street lighting schemes under the Private Finance Initiative. Where local authorities apply for this funding, proposals should be appraised in line with 610W
  the Department's "New Approach to Appraisal" to ensure that the benefits and costs (including environmental and safety benefits) are presented in a consistent way.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has provided on how to assess the condition of concrete lighting columns. [107371]

  Mr. Hill
  Highways Agency Standard TD23, Inspection and Maintenance of Lighting Columns, details procedures for all types of lighting columns, including concrete. It is used as part of routine maintenance procedures on motorways and trunk roads. The Standard is included in "The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges" and is available for use by local authorities on local roads.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities have undertaken programmes to test systematically the integrity of lighting columns since 1997. [107372]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the condition of the street lighting network within the United Kingdom. [107369]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no comprehensive central data collected on the condition of the street lighting network. Routine inspections conducted on motorway and trunk road lighting provide a continuous assessment of the condition of the lighting equipment on those roads. Local highway authorities are responsible for the condition of street lighting on local roads.

  Homophobic Bullying
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent independent research the Government have commissioned into(a) the extent of homophobic bullying in schools and (b) the attitudes of teachers to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. [107271]

  Ms Armstrong
  The most recent research into homophobic bullying in schools and teachers' attitudes towards section 28 of which we are aware was published in November 1997 by the University of London's Institute of Education. The Government itself did not commission this, or any other recent research on these issues.

  Ghost Ants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports his Department has recently received about infestations by ghost ants; and if he will make a statement. [107164]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of extending
  611W
  the right of appeal to opponents of planning applications following granting of planning permission by local authorities. [107564]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is the responsibility of local planning authorities to act in the general public interest when determining planning applications. They must determine applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Such considerations can include views expressed by local residents and other third parties. The scope for third parties to participate fully in the development control process has been increased in recent years, through statutory requirements to consult on the preparation of the development plan and to publicise all planning applications. Local authorities' handling of

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number of recommendations rejected

  8

  6

  7

  10

  8

  (Total number of recommendations)

  (179)

  (154)

  (153)

  (125)

  (80)

  Proportion of total recommendations

  4%

  4%

  5%

  8%

  10%

  Subject of legal challenge

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times he has made decisions which were at variance with determinations made by the appropriate local planning authority following an appeal hearing, in each of the last five years. [107593]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In each of the last five years the number of decisions made by the Secretary of State, following a planning appeal which he has recovered, at variance with determinations made by the local planning authority is as follows:

  Number

  1995

  21

  1996

  20

  1997

  16

  1998

  26

  1999

  12

  Hawksbill Turtles
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the draft proposal by Cuba on hawksbill turtles for discussion at the forthcoming conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. [107609]

  Mr. Mullin
  This proposal, together with others for consideration at the forthcoming CITES Conference, was discussed at a recent informal meeting of EU experts.

  It seems unlikely that the Commission will recommend member states to support Cuba's main proposal. While EU experts were in general agreement that Cuba's precautionary measures, as observed by the fact-finding mission in September 1999, appear to be in order, the status of the species in Caribbean waters remains unclear.
  612W
  planning applications may also be challenged in the courts. While the introduction of a third party right of appeal would give opponents of particular development proposals further opportunities to have their views considered, this could delay many otherwise acceptable developments on which people have already been consulted.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times he has rejected the recommendations of planning appeals inspectors; what proportion of the total number of such recommendations this represents; and how many such decisions were subsequently the subject of legal challenge, in each of the last five years. [107592]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  Irish Community
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to(a) develop and (b) support services to the Irish community in Britain. [107586]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department's policies and programmes are aimed at promoting social cohesion and at providing opportunity for all. It is however principally for local authorities, housing associations, and local regeneration partnerships to identify the needs of particular communities within their areas, including the Irish community, and to develop and support services to meet these needs.

  A66 (Safety)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the safety studies on the A66 will be completed. [107576]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency is currently in the process of letting a contract to carry out the study. Work is expected to start during April 2000, and is expected to take about nine months. It is therefore expected that the study will be completed around the end of the year.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many proposed developments on playing fields have been referred to him for approval following the introduction of new legislation to protect playing fields; and how many he has objected to. [107725]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Since the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 came into effect on 23 December 1998, 17 planning applications have been referred to the Secretary of State, one of which was called-in for his determination and six of which are currently under consideration.

  Tankers (Oil Spills)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures(a) he has introduced and (b) plans to introduce to prevent oil spills from tankers at sea affecting the United Kingdom's coast. [107923]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) will shortly be publishing a revised National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations. The plan provides a framework for the UK's response to marine pollution from ships and offshore installations. The MCA implements the plan when marine pollution incidents involving ships and offshore installations occur in UK waters. The plan remains under constant review in the light of the experience gained from incidents and exercises.

  The MCA also inspects at least one quarter of ships calling at UK ports to ensure that they comply with international safety rules and standards and operates surveillance aircraft to patrol UK waters.

  In addition, my Department will shortly begin a consultative process that could lead to the setting up of Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs) to help protect sensitive marine and coastal environments at particular risk from pollution from shipping.

  Erika Oil Spill
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department is giving to the French authorities in dealing with the Erika oil spill. [107925]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has assisted the French authorities in a number of areas of counter pollution response.

  The MCA co-ordinated the provision of an oil recovery vessel, the British Shield. It provided specialist oil recovery equipment for the vessel from its stockpile and an operator to operate and maintain the equipment on site. I understand that this equipment has made a valuable contribution to the oil recovery operation.

  Staff from the MCA have visited the affected sector of the French coastline to provide advice on beach clean-up techniques, the nature and fate of the heavy fuel oil involved, and waste disposal. It has co-ordinated the provision of advice on, and assistance with, wildlife cleaning and rehabilitation.

  The MCA will continue to assist the French authorities as efforts to clean up oil spilt by the Erika continue.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Erika oil spill on United Kingdom biodiversity, with particular reference to breeding birds. [107924]

  Mr. Hill
  None. However, the Government's statutory adviser on wildlife, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, co-ordinates periodic surveys of coastal colonies of seabirds. A full survey is currently under way.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to publish revised guidance on air pollution standards for animal rendering plants; [107935]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of his Department's revised guidance on air pollution standards for animal rendering plants to each of those companies currently rendering under contracts from the Intervention Board under the over-30 months scheme; and how much of this cost will be borne by the Intervention Board. [107934]

  Mr. Hill
  The revised guidance note was published on 13 January 2000 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House as well as being sent to relevant local authorities and to the UK Renderers Association.

  The note contains guidance for the animal rendering sector as a whole. The costs to individual plants will depend, among other things, on the extent to which plant are currently complying with the original 1991 guidance and the techniques used for the purpose of achieving such compliance.

  Seamen
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of seamen employed in the UK shipping industry are foreign nationals not resident in the UK. [108023]

  Mr. Hill
  A Chamber of Shipping manpower survey of its member companies found that in May 1999 17.4 per cent. of officers and 22 per cent. of ratings working on Chamber of Shipping member companies' vessels were foreign nationals.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the use by UK shipping companies of offshore contracts for British seamen employed on domestic services. [108021]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government committed in their shipping policy paper "British Shipping: Charting a new course" to publish guidelines for the industry on the applicability and use of offshore contracts for seafarers, and to determine whether any amendment to employment rights legislation was necessary.

  The Government have set out the current position in a paper to the social partners and are taking it forward in the training and employment catalyst group established to progress the action points from "Charting a new course".

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many qualified staff are employed by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch; and what budget they(a) had in 1998–99 and (b) will have in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [108078]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch employs 11 professional pilots and 19 graduate engineers. The budget for 1998–99 was £4,121,000. The budget for 1999–2000 is £4,461,000 and for 2000–01 the bid figure is £4,434,000.

  Airfield Closures
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) private and (b) public airfields have closed in the UK in the last five years. [108030]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department is unable to obtain accurate information regarding all public and private aerodromes which have stopped operating in the last five years.

  The only accurate data we have concern the number of licensed aerodromes which have closed in these years. Statistics from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) show that in the last five years, eight aerodromes have had their licence revoked.

  We are aware that in the last five years some aerodromes have received a CAA operating licence and although the figure can vary each year, the number of licensed aerodromes remains fairly constant, on average between 142 and 146.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to remove control of overall safety regulation from Rai1track; and on what date he expects the new regime to be in place. [107861]

  Mr. Hill
  We are presently considering the main functions of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate and where they are best located. The Health and Safety Executive is the sole regulator for railway safety and is involved in this work.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff are employed by each of the regional development agencies. [107941]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The number of full-time equivalent staff employed by each of the regional development agencies at 30 September 1999, the most recent figures available, are as follows. The figures include temporary staff and secondees.

  Number

  One NorthEast

  232

  North West Development Agency

  199

  Yorkshire Forward

  211

  East Midlands Development Agency

  132

  Advantage West Midlands

  147

  East of England Development Agency

  71

  South East England Development Agency

  95

  South West England Development Agency

  171

  Regional Development Boards
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the regional development board local appointees have resigned since their appointments. [107945]
  616W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Of the 102 board members appointed when the Regional Development Agencies were established on 1 April 1999, three board members since have resigned, one each from the South West, West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber regions.

  South West Trains
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the decision on South West Trains' application for confirmation of their new byelaws. [107936]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State is currently considering the byelaws submitted to him by South West Trains, the other railway companies and London Underground, alongside the formal representations received on these byelaws following advertisement. A decision will be made on whether to confirm, amend or reject the byelaws submitted by all the train companies later this year.

  Housing Finance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy regarding applications for local authorities for the writing off of housing revenue account debts and the source of finance for any approvals of such applications. [107922]

  Mr. Mullin
  Where the capital receipt which a local authority receives for the transfer of its entire housing stock is less than the debt attributed to the stock, the Government are prepared to make a one-off payment to assist the authority to repay the outstanding Public Works Loan Board debt principal. In such cases the local authority will be required to repay its attributable housing debt shortly after the transfer is completed. These new arrangements were announced to the House on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 250W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning following consultation with local authorities and others last year.

  Under these arrangements local authorities are required to meet from the capital receipt or their existing resources any premiums arising from the early repayment of debt. An authority with overhanging debt applying for a place on the housing transfer programme must, in addition to meeting the other published criteria, demonstrate that it can pay the premiums arising from the early repayment of debt before they can be allocated a place on the housing transfer programme.

  A copy of a guidance note setting out the detailed arrangements was placed in the Libraries of the House and the Vote Office.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that prospective purchasers of new homes are made aware of their energy efficiency through the standardised assessment procedure rating. [107645]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is already a requirement of the building regulations that a person building a new home should calculate the energy rating of the dwelling using the Standard Assessment Procedure, and notify the
  617W
  rating to the relevant building control body. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced last year that the building regulations will be amended to require the builder, in addition, to put up a notice of the energy rating in the new home. My Department is currently working on the details of the amendment to the regulations.

  Separately, my hon. Friend announced in October last year proposals to require any person marketing a home to provide a pack of standard information and documents for prospective buyers. We envisage that this pack will include an energy rating, calculated in accordance with the Standard Assessment Procedure.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the public inquiry into Heathrow's proposed fifth terminal will report its findings [108170]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The public inquiry closed on 17 March 1999 and the Inspector has said that he expects to take up to two years to produce his report. The Secretary of State will need to give the report full consideration before reaching a decision.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of policies over the past 10 years in reducing the incidence of rough sleeping. [106594]

  Ms Armstrong
  Thorough independent evaluations were carried out on each of the three main phases of the Rough Sleepers Initiative, from 1990 to 1999, as well as on smaller individual projects. The most recent evaluation report, "Homes for Street Homeless People, An evaluation of the Rough Sleepers Initiative", was published in December 1999 and copies were placed in the House Libraries.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many officials in his Department are currently on gardening leave; and if he will make a statement. [108158]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We interpret the term "gardening leave" as applying to staff who have no current assignment and are in receipt of full pay and are not required to attend for work.

  One member of staff falls into this category.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement about road safety policy; and if he will make a statement. [108157]

  Mr. Hill
  We will shortly be publishing a new road safety strategy, which will set out a range of measures for improving road safety.

  Dangerous Chemicals
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the co-ordination between Government Departments of scientific advice and policy development relating to dangerous chemicals. [106592]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government published a strategy on chemicals in the environment, "Sustainable production and use of chemicals: A strategic approach", in December 1999. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  This strategy includes mechanisms for obtaining independent scientific advice and developing policy on dangerous chemicals in the environment in an open and transparent way with the assistance of a new Stakeholder Forum. This Forum will comprise representatives from all of the major stakeholders and will provide advice to Government on the assessment and management of chemicals in the environment. Government Departments, including those with responsibility for health and trade, will be represented on the Forum. Government Departments will continue to work together taking account of the advice from this Forum.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to make changes to the appeals system for non-domestic rates valuations from 1 April 2000; and if he will make a statement. [108602]

  Ms Armstrong
  In March 1999, as part of the Financial Management and Policy Review of the Valuation tribunal service, we consulted on possible changes to the appeals system for business rates. Appeals against a rating assessment can take some years to resolve because of the sheer numbers that are received. At present, businesses are too often in the dark about when their appeal will be considered. This is unacceptable. I believe it is important to businesses that they are given this information and an opportunity to make representations to appropriate bodies for earlier action if they believe this to be necessary.

  Therefore we propose the following reforms to improve the business rates appeals system:
  a new comprehensive programme setting out when ratepayers can expect their appeals to be considered by the Valuation Officer and, if any remain unresolved, when the case may be heard by the Valuation Tribunal;
  the opportunity for ratepayers to make representations if they believe that their place in the timetable is unreasonable;
  improvements in the quality and timeliness of information provided to ratepayers about their valuations;
  clear guidelines on what information the ratepayer should be given and when;
  work towards ending the culture of brinkmanship by cutting off last minute discussions prior to the hearing at the Tribunal;
  on a trial basis, exchanging information on valuations prior to Tribunal hearings.

  We will also encourage early submissions of appeals, limiting the extent to which late appeals can be retrospective. Existing rating lists will close to any new appeals on 31 March 2001.
  619W
  I believe that these and other initiatives will bring greater clarity to the appeals system and more certainty to businesses about when their appeals will be resolved. They will be achieved through a combination of regulation and best practice.

  Priority will be given to the settlement of appeals relating to the 1995 rating list and previous lists. We intend to deal with these appeals as far as possible before work starts on new appeals against the 2000 list.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 6 July 1999 from the hon. Member for South Suffolk. [108044]

  Mr. Hill
  I replied to the hon. Member on 9 September 1999. I enclose a copy for ease of reference.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Suffolk of 12 January. [108045]

  Mr. Hill
  I replied to the hon. Member on Monday 31 January. I enclose a copy for ease of reference.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Primary Education
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the overseas aid budget for the current financial year is targeted at the provision of primary education. [107425]

  Clare Short
  My Department has commitments totalling around £800 million to education, of which three-quarters is for basic and primary education. We have committed over £300 million to such programmes since May 1997. In 1998–99 over 16 per cent. of bilateral programme commitments were targeted towards primary education.

  EU Aid Programme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for the past 12 months(a) the financing proposals prepared by the European Commission which her officials have been asked to consider for approval at the European Development Fund Committee and the EC Asia and Latin America Committee, (b) the amounts of European Development assistance concerned for each of these projects, (c) the dates on which her officials received the documentation for these projects, (d) the dates of the meetings at which each of these was to be considered and (e) in each case whether the projects were approved. [106135]

  Clare Short
  A table listing the financing proposals put forward for approval at the European Development Fund and Asia and Latin America Management Committees over the past year, to the extent that records are available, has been sent to the hon. Member and a copy placed in the Library. The documentation is usually received by officials about three week before each meeting.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cyclists (Spot Fines)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the(a) Royal Parks Agency and (b) Royal Parks Constabulary about applying spot fines to cyclists caught exceeding speed limits in the Royal Parks. [107457]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with the Royal Parks Agency, which includes the Royal Parks Constabulary, about applying spot fines to cyclists caught exceeding speed limits in the Royal Parks.

  There is a practical obstacle to enforcing speeding offences against cyclists because bicycles are not obliged to have speedometers. However, we constantly monitor the impact of cycling on other park users. If we find that problems are arising, we will consider what measures might be appropriate to deal with them, including the introduction of fixed penalty notices.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received about access to sports playing fields by inner-city schools. [108133]

  Kate Hoey
  Since the beginning of the new school term in September, my right hon. Friend and I have received no such representations.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for each parliamentary constituency(a) the total proceeds in cash terms of National Lottery ticket sales over the past five years, (b) the total grants to good causes for the last five years, and (c) the total prize money distributed over the last five years; if he will give in each case the average figure for all constituencies; and if he will make a statement. [106504]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I have placed in the Libraries of the House tables showing (a) total National Lottery tickets sales by constituency (average for each constituency, £38,290,852); and (b) total National Lottery awards by constituency (average for each constituency, £10,838,719) for the first five years of the National Lottery (to 13 November 1999). The total amount won in prizes over the same period was £11,926,610,114, which equates to an average of £18,098,043 per constituency. The breakdown of prizes by constituency is not available.

  Historic Aircraft
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if historic military aircraft restoration projects are eligible for lottery funding; and if he will make a statement. [107374]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: The Heritage Lottery Fund can support a wide variety of projects relating to aviation heritage, including

  621W
  the restoration of historic military aircraft. The Trustees are willing to consider projects involving the long-term conservation, housing and interpretation of important aircraft. However, they do not expect to fund projects which restore aircraft to flying condition, given the risk of accident.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the percentage of(a) registered disabled people, (b) women, (c) people from ethnic minorities and (d) people from (i) independent schools, (ii) grammar schools and (iii) other schools that worked for English Heritage in each of the years (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1999. [107010]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: English Heritage, which is sponsored by this Department, has provided the following statistics for 1999 from information held on employees:

  Percentage

  Registered disabled

  0.37

  Women

  53.88

  Ethnic minorities

  2.32

  Historic data for the earlier years are not readily available. English Heritage was not established until 1984 and in 1989 it did not have a computer system which could record this information. English Heritage does not maintain a record of the schools attended by employees.

  Football Regulator
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce a Football Regulator; and what recent representations he has received from the(a) Football Association and (b) Premier League on this matter. [107298]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: A number of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Football Task Force, which was published on 22 December, relate to the future regulation of football. The Task Force was divided on the merits of different kinds of regulator with some recommending a "Football Audit Commission" and others an "Independent Scrutiny Panel". The Government are now considering all the Task Force's recommendations and will respond in due course. The Department has received no recent representations from either the Football Association or the FA Premier League on this matter.

  Sport England
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met the Chairman and Chief Executive of Sport England; and what matters were discussed. [107297]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: My right hon. Friend and I last met the Chairman and Chief Executive of Sport England on 26 January 2000 to discuss the possible location for a venue for major international athletics events.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the reasons for(a) cancelled and (b) halted performances at The Royal Opera House indicating the action taken by the board of management in relation to faulty construction work in each case; and if he will make a statement. [107064]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In December 1999, the Royal Opera House cancelled six performances of a Ligeti production scheduled for December and a further five performances of other productions scheduled to take place between January and April. Technical rehearsal time for these productions, which had been planned for Autumn 1999, was spent commissioning the new stage equipment. The cancellation freed time in November and December to enable the Opening Celebration, Falstaff, A Celebration of International Choreography and The Nutcracker to open on schedule and be performed as planned.

  The matinee performance of Gawain on 19 January was cancelled as the Royal Opera House management felt it was inappropriate to risk having to make last minute changes to the performance schedule because of unforeseen problems with the stage machinery that could have resulted in delays to the beginning of the performance, and therefore to the schools' return journeys.

  The final ballet in a mixed programme of ballets was cancelled on 20 January because problems with the scene shifting equipment had been encountered earlier during the day which delayed the starting time of the performance, threatening the possibility of completing the full programme for the evening within a reasonable time.

  The manufacturers of the stage equipment and the Royal Opera House's technical staff are working with the new equipment to debug the system, and all possible measures have been taken to ensure performances take place as planned. To date there have been approximately 40 performances in the main auditorium, and a full programme of performances in the Linbury Studio Theatre and Clore Studio Upstairs, as well as free concerts in the Vilar Floral Hall.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department instructs British diplomatic staff overseas not to communicate with individual UK nationals. [107566]

  Mr. Hain
  Staff overseas are instructed not to send substantive replies to letters on official matters received directly form Members of Parliament but to refer such letters to the Department for answer by the appropriate Minister. There are no such instructions in relation to correspondence with members of the public.

  Southern Sudan
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the use of child soldiers in southern Sudan. [107601]
  623W
  Mr. Hain
  We have received many reports of the use of child soldiers in the ongoing conflict in southern Sudan. The EU sponsored resolution on the Sudan at last year's Commission on Human Rights urges all parties to the conflict not to use children as soldiers. This is a message we repeat regularly.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the attack on the relief workers of Norwegian Church Aid, Africa Inolanol Church and the Sudanese Episcopal churches in southern Sudan. [107602]

  Mr. Hain
  I understand that on the morning of 14 January, a Norwegian Church Aid mission looking at displacement and food shortages near Parajok, Eastern Equatoria, was attacked. Two Norwegian Church Aid, one African Inland Church, two Episcopal Church and three Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association workers were killed; three others survived.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the UNICEF estimate of the number of children who have died in Iraq during the period for which sanctions have been imposed; and if he will make a statement. [107591]

  Mr. Hain
  We are very concerned about UNICEF's preliminary report into Child and Maternal Mortality in Iraq and continue to support efforts to target the humanitarian effort there towards the most vulnerable. We are discussing with UNICEF how they propose to adjust their programme in Iraq in light of the survey and are considering opportunities for working with them.

  Meanwhile, the comprehensive resolution on Iraq, SCR 1284, which was drafted and piloted through the Security Council by the UK, includes a raft of measures providing for a bigger and better "oil for food" programme. It also calls on the Government of Iraq at last to prioritise its spending under "oil for food" more effectively and address the needs of vulnerable groups.

  In this respect we oppose the present plan prepared by Iraq which allocates just $10 million out of an available sum of $3.5 billion to targeted feeding programmes for malnourished children.

  If the Iraqi Government had chosen to prioritise genuinely the humanitarian assistance which has been made available since the implementation of UNSCR 986 in 1996, the suffering of the Iraqi people would have been hugely reduced.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he has given to INDICT. [108038]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to support the INDICT campaign. I made this clear when I spoke at an INDICT function in the margins of last year's Labour 624W
  party conference. FCO officials remain in regular contact with INDICT representatives, offering advice and support as appropriate.

  Egypt
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding the findings of the Egyptian Government's inquiry into the recent killings in the village of Al-Kosheh. [107984]

  Mr. Hain
  The Egyptian authorities have pledged to carry out a thorough investigation in to the recent events in and around Al-Kosheh and that investigation is ongoing. Our Embassy in Cairo has been following events and has discussed them with the Egyptian authorities.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Egyptian Government regarding the security of the Christian community following the recent killings in the village of Al-Kosheh. [107656]

  Mr. Hain
  We were concerned to hear of reports of violence in early January in and around Al-Kosheh. Our embassy in Cairo has been following the events and has discussed them with the Egyptian authorities. The Egyptian authorities have pledged to carry out a thorough investigation. That investigation continues.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised or it is anticipated will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [105996]

  Mr. Ingram
  Police Division collect two types of fees, one for registration of premises in which explosives are kept and secondly for licences to purchase, possess or use display fireworks. Fireworks licences were introduced in 1996–97.

  Police Division treat these receipts as negative public expenditure offsetting them against relevant expenditure. The table shows the actual amount collected and the estimated amounts from 1989–2002 in respect of both fees. Estimates beyond 2002 are not available as the NIO, in line with other Government Departments, do not estimate beyond this period.

  £

  Registered premises

  Firework displays

  2001–02

  1-6,000

  1-4,000

  2000–01

  1-6,000

  1-4,000

  1999–2000

  1-7,000

  1-6,000

  1998–99

  -6,253

  -4,595

  1997–98

  -5,891

  -4,768

  1996–97

  -4,881

  -4,302

  1995–96

  -1,377

  n/a

  1994–95

  -1,276

  n/a

  625W

  £

  Registered premises

  Firework displays

  1993–94

  -1,186

  n/a

  1992–93

  -1,031

  n/a

  1991–92

  -1,211

  n/a

  1990–91

  -1,281

  n/a

  1989–90

  -1,136

  n/a

  1 Estimate

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary charges fees in respect of firearm certificates and these are treated as negative public expenditure.

  The table shows moneys collected and estimated amounts for the period covering 1989–2002.

  £

  Firearm certificates

  2001–02

  1-900,000

  2000–01

  1-900,000

  1999–2000

  1-967,000

  1998–99

  -816,000

  1997–98

  -888,000

  1996–97

  -1,087,000

  1995–96

  -806,000

  1994–95

  -848,000

  1993–94

  -1,149,000

  1992–93

  -752,000

  1991–92

  -845,000

  1990–91

  -1,218,000

  1989–90

  -731,100

  1 Estimate

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officials in his Department are on gardening leave. [107961]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: No officials in my Department are on gardening leave.

  Decommissioning Commission
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the International Decommissioning Commission's report. [108470]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I anticipate placing a copy of this report in the Library before the end of the week.

HEALTH

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the take up rate of beta interferon for multiple sclerosis sufferers in each of the health authorities in Greater London in each of the last three years. [105425]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available.

  We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to conduct an appraisal of beta interferon as part of its first work programme, and we expect to have authoritative guidance by the summer. Meantime, health authorities should have policies in place
  626W
  which provide for individual cases to be considered on their merits in the light of the evidence available on different forms of treatment.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Department of Health's guidance on the number of expert assessments that need to be carried out before a multiple sclerosis patient can be prescribed with beta interferon; and if he will make a statement. [105426]

  Ms Stuart
  Guidance issued by the Department in 1995, EL(95)97, advises that patients who apparently fulfil the indications for treatment should be referred to a neurologist for a decision on whether treatment is indicated. A number of laboratory tests are also recommended prior to initiating, and during, therapy. The guidance advises that patients receiving beta interferon treatment should be reviewed by the neurologist at a frequency appropriate to the individual patient's condition, and treatment stopped if for example there are unacceptable side effects.

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

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost of a course of treatment of beta interferon for a patient with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [105427]

  Ms Stuart
  The cost of a one-year course of beta interferon treatment is around £10,000.

  Consultants (Suspensions and Dismissals)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants in England are suspended on full pay; and how many have been so suspended for more than(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) nine months. [106537]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures are held centrally only on suspensions lasting longer than six months. As at 31 December 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, there were two consultants suspended for more than six months and 16 for more than nine months. Information is not collected on suspensions lasting less than six months.

  Caesarian Births
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of births by caesarian section and (b) the percentage of births this figure represents in the North West Region for each of the past five years. [107141]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: Based on the information available to the Department, the estimated figures for the five years 1993–94 to 1997–98, the most current period available, are in the table.

  Estimated number of caesarean sections in England

  Year

  Caesarean delivery percentage

  Number of caesareans

  1993–94

  15

  93,000

  1994–95

  16

  93,500

  1995–96

  16

  95,000

  627W

  Estimated number of caesarean sections in England

  Year

  Caesarean delivery percentage

  Number of caesareans

  1996–97

  17

  98,700

  1997–98

  17

  103,000

  Estimated number of caesarean sections in North West Region

  Year

  Caesarean delivery percentage

  Number of caesareans

  1993–94

  15

  11,700

  1994–95

  15

  12,400

  1995–96

  15

  12.000

  1996–97

  16

  13,100

  1997–98

  16

  12,500

  Post-natal Depression
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts routinely use the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at post-natal examinations; and what advice his Department has given on the use of this scale. [107142]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The information requested is not available centrally. The Department has not issued advice specifically on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

  We recognise the role of health visitors and midwives in assessing and supporting mothers with post-natal depression. The National Service Framework for mental health, published in September 1999, includes evidence on effective ways of reducing the risks of post-natal depression and sets a target for all health authorities to have protocols agreed and implemented between primary care and specialist services for management of depression and post-natal depression by April 2001.

  Funding (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) cash and (b) percentage increase in health funding for (i) North Cumbria Health Authority and (ii) Cumbria Ambulance Service he proposes for 2000–01. [107527]

  Mr. Denham
  The 2000–01 allocation for North Cumbria health authority is £213.66 million. This represents a cash increase of £13.82 million (6.92 per cent.).

  National Health Service trusts receive most of their income from the service agreements they hold with other NHS bodies.

  Crohn's Disease
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has evaluated on the alleged connection between Crohn's disease and the drinking of unpasteurised milk. [107356]

  Mr. Denham
  We are not aware of any specific evidence on the alleged connection between Crohn's disease and the consumption of unpasteurised milk. The Department has examined the alleged link between Crohn's disease and mico para tuberculosis, which can occur in milk.
  628W
  The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens considered the evidence for and against such a link in 1992 and 1998. In reviewing the more recent evidence in 1998 the Committee concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to revise its earlier opinion that a link was not proven.

  Capital Prioritisation
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review of the Capital Prioritisation Process began; who is undertaking the review; and when the Minister will consider its conclusions. [107416]

  Mr. Denham
  Officials have been asked to consider the process for prioritising future major capital investment schemes and review whether the current capital prioritisation process properly meets the requirements of Ministers. No external bodies are involved in this process. Ministers will make an announcement in due course.

  Royal Marsden and Christie Hospitals
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the amount of non-capital funding in 1998–99 for(a) the Christie Hospital and (b) the Royal Marsden which was derived from (a) his Department, (b) charitable donations, (c) endowments and (d) other sources. [107376]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: The information requested is in the table:

  £ million

  Christie Hospital

  Royal Marsden

  Departmental

  38.4

  53.1

  Charitable including endowments

  12.4

  0.919

  Other sources

  6.6

  20.1

  It should be noted that as cancer service providers both of these hospitals are not directly comparable due to a number of factors which are unique to the Royal Marsden Hospital. These include the population served, level of complex surgery performed, a different case mix, higher building and capital costs as well as higher staffing costs as a result of London weighting.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out total expenditure on the NHS(a) at 1999–2000 prices and (b) as a proportion of natural income for each financial year since 1978–79 and for the remainder of the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will provide a breakdown between (i) current and (ii) capital expenditure. [107661]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows for England,(a) gross National Health Service expenditure, (b) gross current NHS expenditure, (c) gross capital NHS expenditure. It is not possible to provide England NHS expenditure as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as GDP relates to the United Kingdom as a whole rather than England. Column (d) therefore provides Gross UK NHS expenditure as percentage of GDP.
  629W

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  England total gross 1 NHS expenditure in 1999–2000 prices 2 (£ million)

  England total gross NHS current expenditure in 1999–2000 prices (£ million)

  England total gross NHS capital expenditure in 1999–2000 prices (£ million)

  UK total gross NHS expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1978–79

  21,589

  20,229

  1,360

  4.7

  1979–80

  21,971

  20,662

  1,309

  4.7

  1980–81

  24,206

  22,704

  1,502

  5.3

  1981–82

  24,789

  23,130

  1,659

  5.4

  1982–83

  25,278

  23,661

  1,617

  5.4

  1983–84

  25,647

  24,030

  1,617

  5.3

  1984–85

  26,202

  24,481

  1,721

  5.3

  1985–86

  26,317

  24,529

  1,788

  5.1

  1986–87

  27,444

  25,580

  1,864

  5.1

  1987–88

  28,667

  26,833

  1,835

  5.1

  1988–89

  29,852

  27,994

  1,858

  5.1

  1989–90

  30,012

  27,947

  2,065

  5.0

  1990–91

  31,153

  29,041

  2,113

  5.2

  1991–92

  33,217

  31,118

  2,100

  5.6

  1992–93

  35,258

  33,015

  2,242

  5.9

  1993–94

  36,335

  34,222

  2,113

  5.9

  1994–95

  37,919

  35,529

  2,390

  5.9

  1995–96

  38,580

  36,318

  2,261

  5.9

  1996–97

  38,786

  36,904

  1,882

  5.7

  1997–98

  39,904

  38,256

  1,647

  5.7

  1998–99

  40,780

  39,439

  1,342

  5.7

  1999–2000

  43,049

  41,187

  1,762

  5.9

  2000–01

  44,619

  42,370

  2,054

  6.0

  2001–02

  46,189

  43,639

  2,264

  6.0

  1 Gross NHS expenditure is Net or Government expenditure (ie that financed by the exchequer) plus income from receipts and charges.

  2 Adjusted by 22 December 1999 GDP deflator.

  Note:

  Figures may not be wholly consistent over the period due to classification changes.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra resources he is making available to meet the demands on the NHS made by asylum seekers and refugees. [107603]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care groups are responsible for planning and commissioning health care for all their population including any asylum seekers that are allocated to their areas. Funding for primary care takes account of visitors from overseas, including asylum seekers and refugees.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asylum seekers and refugees have presented themselves to(a) general practitioners, (b) district general hospitals and (c) other NHS services in Eastbourne in the last 12 months. [107615]

  Mr. Hutton
  Between November 1998 and December 1999, 213 asylum seekers and refugees registered with general practitioners in Eastbourne Downs Primary Care Group, the primary care group covering the Eastbourne area.

  Information regarding the number of asylum seekers and refugees presenting to district general hospitals and other National Health Service services in Eastbourne is not collected.

  Biomedical Scientists
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region his Department's establishment for biomedical scientists. [107608]
  630W
  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not employ Biomedical Scientists working in the National Health Service. Their contracts are held by individual NHS trusts, special health authorities and other statutory authorities.

  The available information is shown in the table. Biomedical scientists are included in the table but cannot be separately identified.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): all pathology scientists by region, in England as at 30 September 1998

  Whole-time equivalent

  Numbers (headcount)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  190

  200

  Trent

  110

  120

  Anglia and Oxford

  90

  100

  North Thames

  260

  280

  South Thames

  170

  180

  South West

  130

  140

  West Midlands

  110

  110

  North and West

  200

  220

  Other

  240

  250

  England Total

  1,510

  1,600

  Notes:

  1. "Other" includes staff employed by SHAs, OSAs and other centrally based services.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  4. "Pathology scientists" includes Immunologists, Clinical Cytogenetics, Chemical Pathologists, Haematologist etc.

  5. Biomedical scientists are included in the totals but cannot be identified separately.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where the pilot schemes for digital hearing aids will be located; and how individuals who wish to take part in the pilots may do so; [107985]

  (2) what are the criteria used for the selection of sites for his Department's new digital hearing aid pilot; [107987]

  (3) how many pilot schemes with end dates for hearing aids his Department has created in each of the last three years; what the end dates were; and if the pilot schemes have been rolled out by their end dates. [107988]

  Mr. Hutton
  The pilot scheme to trail digital hearing aids which we announced recently is a new scheme; there have not been any earlier pilots of a similar nature funded by the Department.

  The criteria for the scheme are currently being finalised. We will be writing to National Health Service trusts and health authorities shortly to seek applications from hearing aid departments to participate in the scheme. Details of the participating sites, when agreed, will be publicised.

  Leishmaniasis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision within the NHS for treating leishmaniasis. [106208]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: Services for the diagnosis and treatment of leishmaniasis, as for other imported infections, are provided by and through the patient's general practitioner. If the patient has a mild form of the disease, this would be managed by the GP. If, however, the patient has a more severe form of the disease, the GP would refer the patient to a hospital specialist. Consultants in dermatology, infectious diseases or tropical diseases would be appropriate, depending on the clinical presentation and local circumstances.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 465W, on departmental research contracts, if he will (a) state total expenditure on research let by his Department since May 1997 and (b) list the titles of all research contracts let by his Department during 1999 and costing £20,000 or more, stating what is the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (iii) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [107095]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: Since 1997 the total expenditure on research contracts let by the Department through departmental and National Health Service research and development budgets is as follows:

  Policy Research Programme expenditure:

  1997–98: £26.2 million

  1998–99: £27.3 million

  632W
  NHS research and development programme expenditure on directly commissioned projects:

  1997–98: £75,847,000

  1998–99: £73,437,000

  NHS research and development programme expenditure on allocations to NHS providers:

  1997–98: £350,019,000

  1998–99: £350,959,000.

  Information about individual research contracts is collectable only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of medical and related research funded or supported by the Department can be found in the National Research Register. This is available in the Library and in most medical libraries on CD Rom, and on the internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm.

  Copies of model contracts for the Department's Policy Research Programme and the NHS research and development programme are in the Library.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the percentage of total labour costs of firms in(a) the automobile sector and (b) the insurance sector attributable to providing health insurance cover for their employees, in (i) the United States, (ii) Canada, (iii) France and (iv) Germany. [107802]

  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 Tim Holt to Mr. Denis MacShane, dated 2 February 2000:
  As the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding the percentage of total labour costs attributable to providing health insurance cover for various countries.
  The information you requested is not available from the ONS. The Statistical Office of the European Communities publishes data for Germany and France, although it should be noted that the latest available data relate to 1992. Information for the United States and Canada can be obtained from the US Bureau of Labour Statistics and Statistics Canada respectively.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what consideration underlay the decision to appoint Pricewaterhouse to headhunt for possible members of the Appointments Commission; and if she will make a statement. [107350]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government decided to use recruitment consultants to assist in the process of identifying candidates for the House of Lords Appointments Commission in order to ensure that the widest possible field of candidates was considered, and to benefit from their professional expertise in managing the process. PricewaterhouseCoopers executive search and selection were appointed after four firms were invited to tender for the project. The whole process is being done under the principles of the Commissioner
  633W
  for Public Accounts, and will also include public advertisements. The actual appointments will be made by a selection panel.

TREASURY

  Unemployment (City of Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unemployed(a) male and (b) female 16 to 24-year-olds in the City of Durham (i) had never been employed and (ii) had been unemployed for more than a year, in each of the last five years; and what were the highest levels of unemployment recorded in Durham in each of the last five years for (a) 16 to 24 year olds and (b) those aged 25 years. [108012]

  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 Tim Holt to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 2 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on unemployed people in Durham.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is in the ONS's main source of labour market data on individuals. The measure of unemployment derived from the LFS is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The LFS can provide information on people aged 16 to 24 who have never been employed and people aged 16 to 24 who have been unemployed for more than a year. However, no LFS data on people who have never been employed and the length of ILO unemployment are available below county level.
  As with any sample survey, Labour Force Survey estimates are subject to sampling variability. The smaller the estimate, the larger the variability relative to the size of the estimate and even for Durham county such analyses will not provide reliable estimates.
  The ONS also publishes figures on the number of people who are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance Credits. This is published monthly and is known as the claimant count.
  Detailed information for the City of Durham constituency on claimant count levels and monthly analyses of computerised claims by specific age and duration bands can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library. The claimant count has been on a downward trend in each of the last five years in the City of Durham constituency. The highest point during this period was in January 1996.

  LINK
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make representations to the LINK board meeting on 29 February, regarding access to financial services; [107730]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact that LINK ATM surcharging will have on access to financial services for people on low incomes. [107729]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is for banks in the first instance to resolve how they charge their customers for the use of ATM machines in a competitive environment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has commissioned a review of banking competition under Don Cruickshank. When it reports the Government will consider carefully whether any action is required.

  Credit Ratings
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the credit rating of companies seeking to tender for services provided by his Department is checked before the contract is awarded. [107741]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury decisions on an individual bidding company's financial standing take account of latest available audited and interim accounts and any other relevant published information including credit and debt rating. These checks are undertaken on contracts where early termination would place a financial and operational risk on the Department.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often the credit rating of companies supplying services to his Department is checked. [107749]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  During the period of the contract, the Treasury will carry out checks of this nature only if it has reason to believe that any of its contractors may be in financial trouble.

  Debt Reduction
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those countries with whom he has recently discussed help from the United Kingdom as to the possible reduction of their debt burden. [108017]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for International Development announced on 21 December 1999 that the UK will be providing 100 per cent. relief on the debts of all the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, once the country qualifies for relief under the HIPC initiative. No extra conditions will apply.

  Uganda will be one of the first countries that will benefit from the extra relief to be provided by the UK. In a meeting with the Chancellor and Secretary of State for International Development just before Christmas, the Ugandan Treasury Secretary told them that the extra money will go towards meeting his country's commitment to universal primary education and towards lowering the pupil:teacher ratio in schools from today's level of 100:1 to 50:1 in 2003.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what help is he able to offer those industries that are intensive energy users but are presently outside the eligibility criteria to enter into a negotiated agreement under the climate change levy. [107937]

  Mr. Timms
  Those sectors outside the scope of the negotiated agreements stand to benefit from a number of modifications to the design of the climate change levy announced by the Chancellor in the Pre-Budget Report, including the lower overall rates of the levy; the exemptions for electricity generated from 'new' forms of renewable energy and in 'good quality' combined heat and power plants; and the trebling of support for energy efficiency measures under the levy package.

  Tobacco Revenues
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if spending on the NHS during the period of
  635W
  the second Comprehensive Spending Review, excluding any increases in spending that result from real terms increases in revenues from tobacco, will not be cut in real terms. [107983]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Decisions on expenditure plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 will be taken in due course as part of the current spending review. The Government are however committed to increase NHS spending in real terms, year on year.

  Reserves
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the profits were from the Bank of England's investment of the reserves net of management charges for the last five years; [106799]

  (2) what the cost was of holding the Government's foreign currency reserves in the last five years. [106798]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The 1997–98 accounts of the Exchange Equalisation Account, the account at the Bank of England which holds the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves, were published on 26 January. These accounts were the first ever accounts of the Exchange Equalisation Account to be published. The accounts for 1998–99 will be published once the National Audit Office has completed its audit.

  The Treasury has a PSA target to:
  "minimise the cost of holding the Government's foreign currency reserves, while reducing risk".

  A report on performance against this target will be published in the Treasury's Departmental Report to be published later this year.

  IT Staff Salaries
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the differentials between the salaries of IT staff in the(a) public sector and (b) private sector on the efficiency of public sector IT procurement. [106585]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This is one of a range of issues currently being examined by the Cabinet Office's review of major IT projects. We are also taking careful account of it in setting up the Office of Government Commerce.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of(a) families with dependent children, (b) non-pensioner couples with no children, (c) non-pensioner single people, (d) pensioner couples and (e) single pensioners who have gross annual income of less than L10,000 and who (i) pay tax and (ii) do not pay tax, if receipts of tax credits are treated as negative taxation. [103551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treating the Working Families Tax Credit as negative taxation impacts only upon category(a)families with dependent children. It is estimated that in 2000–01 there will be 270,000 families with dependent children with gross annual income of less than £10,000 that include a taxpayer. Of those families about 200,000 will receive Working Families Tax Credit that exceeds the total tax liability of the family. For 2000–01 the numbers affected in the other categories, and the numbers in receipt 636W
  of other tax credits such as the Disabled Person's Tax Credit are too small, or the amounts involved are too small, for reliable estimates to be made.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press releases were issued by the Treasury in each year from 1995 to the present. [106802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of Treasury press notices in each year from 1995 to the present is as follows:

  Number

  1995

  186

  1996

  187

  1997

  184

  1998

  244

  1999

  239

  2000

  18

  1 To date

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Nursing Home Residents (Income Support)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many residents of residential and nursing homes(a) in total, (b) aged 65 years or over and (c) aged under 65 years, who have preserved rights to income support, are being supported by local authorities. [104063]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available centrally.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measure of average earnings will be used to update the lower earnings threshold for the state second pension. [107670]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Low Earnings Threshold will be revalued annually in line with increases in national average earnings, normally measured by the Average Earnings Index (All Employees) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the method used to calculate holiday entitlement for people in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance. [107653]

  Mr. Bayley
  We recognise the importance for carers of being able to take a break from their caring responsibilities. A carer in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance is therefore able to retain entitlement during short breaks not exceeding four weeks in any 26 without losing benefit.

  The calculation of this entitlement involves the use of a rolling period of 26 weeks. Each week of the proposed break is assessed to see if it falls within a period of 26 weeks in which no more than four weeks' break will have occurred in total.

  Neighbour Nuisance
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to use benefit sanctions to tackle the problem of neighbour nuisance. [107484]

  Angela Eagle
  We have made it clear that there is no unconditional right to benefits. Rights must be matched by responsibilities. We are looking at these issues across the board, but no announcements are imminent.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the age at which the income of the two pensioners in examples 1 and 2 of page 122 of the "Opportunities for All" report will be less than the Minimum Income Guarantee; and what are his assumptions about increases in(a) the basic state pension, (b) the state second pension and (c) the Minimum Income Guarantee after 2051. [107373]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.The time taken and age at which each of the two illustrative examples detailed would fall onto the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG).

  Example 1

  Example 2

  Time taken to fall onto the MIG following retirement (years)

  9

  12

  Age when example falls onto the MIG

  74

  77

  Note:

  These results have been estimated assuming:

  State second pension starts in 2002 and is uprated in line with prices once in payment;

  Basic state pension is uprated in line with prices;

  Minimum Income Guarantee is uprated in line with earnings from 1999 onwards;

  Earnings are assumed to grow 1.5 per cent. faster than prices in line with GAD projections;

  A person who works for a full working life begins work at age 16, works for 49 years and retires at age 65.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Barristers (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what words form the declaration required as a condition of appointment to the Senior Bar in Northern Ireland; and what is his assessment of the compatibility of this requirement with(a) the Fair Employment Act, (b) the. Good Friday Agreement and (c) UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. [107826]

  Mr. Lock
  Those called as Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland are required to make the same declaration as is required of Queen's Counsel in England and Wales:"I, N., do sincerely promise and declare that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and all whom I may lawfully be called upon to serve in the office of one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law according to the best of my skill and understanding."

  The second part of the question relates to a matter currently before the High Court in Northern Ireland, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment at this stage.
  638W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many individuals have been called to the Bar in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years; and what was the perceived community affiliation of the intake in each year. [107824]

  Mr. Lock
  I understand from the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland that the numbers of individuals called to the Bar of Northern Ireland were:

  Year

  Term

  Number called

  Total

  1989

  Hilary

  4

  —

  Trinity

  6

  —

  Michaelmas

  24

  34

  1990

  Trinity

  7

  —

  Michaelmas

  26

  33

  1991

  Trinity

  9

  —

  Michaelmas

  22

  31

  1992

  Hilary

  2

  —

  Trinity

  1

  —

  Michaelmas

  22

  25

  1993

  Hilary

  3

  —

  Trinity

  7

  —

  Michaelmas

  23

  33

  1994

  Hilary

  1

  —

  Trinity

  2

  —

  Michaelmas

  36

  39

  1995

  Trinity

  4

  —

  Michaelmas

  21

  25

  1996

  Hilary

  7

  —

  Trinity

  6

  —

  Michaelmas

  33

  46

  1997

  Hilary

  7

  —

  Trinity

  3

  —

  Michaelmas

  43

  53

  1998

  Hilary

  14

  —

  Michaelmas

  36

  50

  1999

  Hilary

  13

  —

  Michaelmas

  43

  56

  Information on the perceived community backgrounds is irrelevant and is not collected.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the dates of correspondence exchanged since January 1997 with the Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice concerning appointments to the Senior Bar; and if he will place copies of correspondence in the Library. [107825]

  Mr. Lock
  This relates to a matter currently before the High Court in Northern Ireland and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment or to provide copies as sought at this stage.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out the procedures for nomination, selection and appointment of the Senior Bar in Northern Ireland; how many appointments have been made in each of the last 10 years; and what was the perceived community affiliation of the intake in each year. [107823]

  Mr. Lock
  The process of appointing Queen's Counsel relates to a matter currently before the High Court in Northern Ireland and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment. The nomination and selection process is one of open application, the applications received being considered alongside the views of consultees who comprise judges, the Northern Ireland Bar and Law Society of Northern Ireland. Selections are made on merit.
  639W
  The number of Queen's Counsel appointed in Northern Ireland in the last 10 years are:

  Year

  Number

  1989

  8

  1990

  —

  1991

  —

  1992

  —

  1993

  10

  1994

  —

  1995

  —

  1996

  13

  1997

  —

  1998

  —

  1999

  10

  The call of members of other Inner Bars and calls Honoris Causa are not included.Information on the perceived community background of appointees is irrelevant and is not collected.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation procedures were adopted following publication of the Elliott report in May 1997; what responses were made; and what conclusion he reached. [107827]

  Mr. Lock
  This relates to a matter currently before the High Court in Northern Ireland and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment at this stage.

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Pigs

  Assured British meat

  National assurance database information and administration system (pigs module)

  Pigs

  Assured British Meat

  ABM Assured British Pigs Scheme data merger

  Pigs

  BOCM Pauls Ltd.

  Maximising pig carcase value

  Pigs/organic

  Eastbrook Farm Organic Meats Ltd.

  Growing the organic pigmeat market from a UK production base

  Pigs

  Food Trak plc

  Traceability in the pigmeat supply chain

  Pigs

  JSR Farms Ltd.

  Integrated pigmeat supply initiative

  Pigs

  Ladies In Pigs

  A catering college's initiative to secure the future for British pigmeat in catering

  Pigs

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Project 2: improving supply chain communications

  Pigs

  National Pig Association

  A risk management initiative for UK pig industry

  Pigs

  United Pig Marketing

  A shared IT and information system for UPM and its supply chain partners

  Pigs

  University of Aberdeen

  A training package for the British pig industry using multi-media technology

  Beef

  Glendale Beef Producers

  Glendale Beef Producers' initiative

  Beef/dairy

  Warwickshire Quality Calves

  Improving the value of beef calves from the dairy herd

  Dairy

  National Milk Records plc

  Proposal for a south west dairy information network

  Dairy/organic

  Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative

  Design and initial implementation of a novel technology transfer and quality management system on organic dairy farms

  Dairy/speciality

  Business Link Bradford and District

  Feasibility study into potential for a yoghurt production facility in the Asian community

  Eggs

  British Free Range Egg Producers Association

  British Free Range Egg Marketing Company Ltd.

  Sheep

  British Sheep Dairying Association

  Implementation of structural development of the sheep dairy sector

  Sheep/speciality

  Business Link Bradford and District

  New routes to new markets—investigation into ways of making better use of sheepmeat products to the benefit of producers

  Wild boar

  The British Wild Boar Association

  To improve collaborative marketing activity between primary and secondary producers of British farmed wild boar

  Livestock general

  Assured British Meat

  Multiple retail caterers—food safety assurance module

  Livestock general

  Assured British Meat

  Assurance chain—focus farms

  Livestock general/regional/speciality

  Assured British Meat

  Assurance and food heritage

  Livestock general

  Farmway Ltd.

  Marketing co-operatively produced branded pork, beef and lamb through 'Farmway' co-operative stores: a feasibility study

  Livestock general

  Harper Adams University College

  Building regional enterprise and agricultural competitiveness through IT (Breakthrough-IT)

  Livestock general

  Meadow Valley Livestock Ltd.

  Improving farmers' efficiency and returns by directing them to market led, added value marketing schemes

  Livestock general

  South East Primestock Producers (SEPP) Ltd.

  A plan for regional growth and farmer

  Livestock general/organic/speciality

  Humane Slaughter Association

  Mobile slaughter unit 2000

  Nursery stock

  Horticultural Trades Association

  A project to influence structural change in the landscape supply chain to build value in the soft landscape market

  Community Legal Service
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to publish directions to the Legal Services Commission setting priorities for funding in respect of the Community Legal Service. [108671]

  Mr. Lock
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote yesterday to Peter Birch CBE, Chairman-Designate of the Legal Services Commission, enclosing three directions about priorities for funding, the scope of the Community Legal Services Fund and particular budgets within the Fund. Copies of these directions have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Development Scheme
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants have been offered under the Agriculture Development Scheme. [108570]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased that offers of some £2 million in marketing grants have been made under the Agriculture Development Scheme. Around 35 per cent. of the money will benefit the pig sector directly and some of the other projects directed at the livestock sector will also help pig producers. Overall, we are assisting a wide range of sectors and regions. The following organisations have been offered grant aid.
  641W

  Sector

  Lead organisation

  Project

  Nursery stock

  Horticultural Trades Association

  A project to extend the HTA nursery certification scheme to include the inspection and supply of local provenance

  Nursery stock

  Horticultural Trades Association

  A project to develop a greater understanding of the supply chain within the nurserystock sector

  Onions

  British Onion Producers Organisation

  Sector analysis of the onion market

  Potatoes

  Hereward Growers

  Collaborative marketing initiative

  Soft fruit

  Advanced Marketing Services Ltd.

  Soft fruit development for category management

  Soft fruit

  The Berryworld Producers' Organisation Ltd.

  Development of an integrated traceability system for the soft fruit industry

  Tomatoes

  Tomato Growers Association

  Investigation into the development of an integrated quality management system for the British tomato industry

  Top fruit

  Fruition Group Ltd.

  Rationalisation: the basis of a full category player

  Horticulture general

  Checkmate International

  Benchmarking services for the EUREP GAP framework

  Horticulture general

  Institute of Grocery Distribution

  Benchmarking the industry

  Combinable crops

  Samuel Rose Ltd.

  Promoting vertical integration through farmer collaboration in agricultural supply chains

  Combinable crops

  United Grain Producers

  "The Marlborough Group" (working together to improve farm incomes)

  Farmers' markets

  National Association of Farmers Markets

  Together to market

  Direct selling

  Farm Retail Association

  Red and green box scheme feasibility study

  Viticulture

  The Magpie Consultancy

  Formation of a collaborative marketing company owned by producers and devoted to the marketing development of the wines and vineyards of England

  Trout

  Longford Estate

  Co-ordinated approach to trout marketing

  General

  Plunkett Foundation

  Increasing competitiveness in the farmer controlled business sector through the use of best practice benchmarking

  General

  Lantra

  Increasing the competitiveness of the land based sector

CABINET OFFICE

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met the anti-drugs co-ordinator. [106591]

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent discussions she has had with the anti-drugs co-ordinator on the incidence of drugs use. [106593]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I hold regular meetings with the Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss all aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy.

  Investors in People
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in achieving Government targets on securing Investors in People status for all Government Departments. [106596]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  88 per cent. of civil servants now work in organisations that are recognised as Investors in People. This is a significant achievement and Departments and Agencies should be congratulated on their progress.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a royal commission on the law relating to cannabis. [106598]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Establishing such a Royal Commission would pre-suppose that some change in the law is necessary or desirable. That is not this Government's belief and we have no intention of legalising any controlled drug.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made in implementing the Social Exclusion Unit's report on truancy. [106599]
  642W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Good progress in implementing the Social Exclusion Unit's report is being made and as part of this process the Department for Education and Employment recently launched its strategy document "Tackling Truancy Together" for consultation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for School Standards and I am monitoring progress both within DfEE, across Whitehall and beyond.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. [106600]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Social Exclusion Unit was established in December 1997. Since then it has produced five reports and action plans on subjects as diverse as rough sleeping and teenage pregnancy.

  The Prime Minister will announce a new work programme for the Unit in the summer of 2000, once its current project to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal is completed.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. [106606]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Social Exclusion Unit was established in December 1997. Since then it has produced five reports and action plans on subjects as diverse as rough sleeping and teenage pregnancy.

  The Prime Minister will announce a new work programme for the Unit in the summer of 2000, once its current project to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal is completed.

  Older People
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the Better Government for Older People initiative. [106601]
  643W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Better Government for Older People programme is continuing to make good progress towards delivering the improved public services that older people deserve.

  Those involved in its 28 pilot projects, which involve nearly 300 partner organisations, are making an invaluable contribution to this work. We have decided to extend the programme until December 2000 to make Sure its lessons are widely learned across the public sector.

  Drugs (Zero Tolerance)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the progress in implementing the zero tolerance policy towards drugs. [106602]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are making good progress towards the tough targets set out in its strategy document, "Tackling Drugs to build a better Britain".

  Clearly there is much to do, but a great deal of work is already under way. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced details of how £20 million has been allocated for the expansion of Arrest Referral Schemes designed to get drug misusers into treatment. This is in addition to the £217 million allocated to anti-drugs work as part of the last spending review.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the Bills for which a regulatory impact assessment has been made. [106604]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the twice-yearly Command Papers, titled "Regulatory Impact Assessments", which are placed in the Libraries of the House. A regulatory impact assessment must be carried out whenever proposed regulations will have significant costs for business, charities or voluntary organisations.

  Statements
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to her oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 759, on oral statements to the House, if she will make a statement on Government policy on giving information to the press before making statements to the House. [106605]

  Mr. Stringer
  As the Ministerial Code makes clear, when Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, to Parliament.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations she has received from interested parties on the co-ordination of Government policies on genetic modification of agricultural crops; and if she will make a statement. [106607]
  644W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  A number of outside organisations have written to me seeking meetings, and I am in the process of meeting a number of them. These include environmental groups, consumer bodies and industry representatives.

  Regulations
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many regulations have been introduced and how many abolished since 1 May 1997. [106608]

  Mr. Stringer
  It is the Government's policy to introduce regulation only when really necessary and to ensure that it imposes the minimum burden to achieve its objective. The Government also insists that a regulatory impact assessment is carried out whenever regulations are likely to have an impact on business, charities or voluntary organisations. The number of regulatory impact assessments is recorded in twice-yearly Command Papers which are placed in the Libraries of the House. Listing the absolute number of regulations made is meaningless. If one assumes that the term regulations means Statutory Instruments, the total would include all those with no impact on business, every deregulatory order, every routine air traffic and road closure order, as well as those that have lapsed and those laid in order to revoke existing Statutory Instruments.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the increase in the cost of special advisers since May 1997. [106609]

  Mr. Stringer
  The estimated cost of Special Advisers in 1999–2000 is £4.0 million. The increase in cost is the result of strengthening the centre to ensure a firm political focus and greater co-ordination in the work of this Administration.

  Electronic Government Services
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the performance tables for each Department for the electronic delivery of Government services. [106610]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 276W. The Autumn 1999 monitoring report is available at the Central Information Technology Unit website at www.citu.gov.uk.

  Civil Service Fast Stream
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the fast stream development programme for civil servants. [106611]

  Mr. Stringer
  The fast stream development programme is an annual scheme to recruit high calibre graduates into the Civil Service. In line with the Modernising Government agenda, it aims to recruit candidates who are the most able and who reflect the full diversity of our society. The fast stream selection process will come under direct Civil Service management from December 2001.
  645W
  Candidates are selected by a combination of tests, assessment centre and interview. The programme offers a training and development package leading to early promotion.

  The scheme will play an important role in helping to fulfil parts of the "Modernising Government" agenda which lays down key steps for the development of a Civil Service for the 21st Century. Work is continuing to ensure that fast stream entrants reflect the full diversity of society and the scheme is reviewing and developing its recruitment criteria to reflect current and future needs. This will ensure that the most able people meet the Civil Service's need for leadership, management and service delivery as well as traditional policy skills.

  The Civil Service fast stream development programme is going through further changes. The former Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the
  646W
  Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), in response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) about the future arrangements for recruitment to the Civil Service fast stream development programme, announced on 10 February 1999, Official Report, column 232:
  A review of the operation of the recruitment process took place during 1998. As a result I have decided in principle that, on the expiry of the current contracts, the selection stages of the process will return to direct Civil Service management. I expect specialist services including advertising, publicity, response handling and psychology support to continue to be supplied by the private sector following competitive tender.

  Direct Civil Service management will begin from December 2001. The aims of this change are to develop the scheme's ability to recruit the best people for the job, improve candidate care and improve the image of the Civil Service as an employer.

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

Scottish Executive: Concordats and Ministerial Committees
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the system of concordats and the associated ministerial committees have been used in relation to Scotland.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Memorandum of Understanding and the four overarching concordats were published on 1st October 1999, setting out the overall framework of working relationships after devolution. Sixteen bilateral concordats covering more detailed working arrangements between the Scottish Executive and UK government departments were published in three tranches during November and December 1999. All those concerned are now working within these frameworks. The arrangements appear to be working well.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and I did of course see the Government's publication in October. But is a concordat likely to be invoked over tuition fees and the present compromise whereby English students at Scottish universities and Scottish students at English universities will have to pay fees, a matter now being examined by the European Commission as well? Are the proceedings a the concordat system to be made public in the interests of transparency and freedom of information?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the issue of tuition fees is a matter devolved to the Scottish Parliament in so far as it affects Scotland. It is in the nature of devolution that the power and the right to make these decisions goes to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. United Kingdom Ministers and Scottish Ministers are in frequent contact on a wide range of matters and keep each other informed of policy developments, as anticipated by the Memorandum of Understanding and the various concordats. Neither the Government nor any of the devolved administrations has felt the need to call a joint ministerial committee for the purpose of resolving a dispute on either this issue or indeed on any other issue, which is why there has not been a meeting of the joint ministerial committee.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how the concordats and
228
committees can actually help the Government to pursue their objectives properly? Can she say how items arrive on the agenda? Can Members in either House write to suggest items for the agenda? When does she expect the joint ministerial committee to meet?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, my noble friend has asked a variety of questions. I shall try to deal with as many of them as I can in a brief time. It has not been necessary so far to hold a meeting of the joint ministerial committee in plenary format. The JMC annexe to the Memorandum of Understanding, published in October states that it will meet at least once a year. No date has yet been arranged for that first routine meeting. However, we have already held an initial meeting of a functional JMC on poverty and will follow that up with one on the knowledge economy.
Those two committees reflect the Government's commitment to economic stability and to social justice. We should all welcome the establishment of the JMC on poverty. The Government have committed themselves to eradicating child poverty and this JMC will facilitate co-ordinated thinking and action across a range of devolved and reserved matters. As a result of measures like the working families' tax credit and the New Deal, 60,000 children in Scotland have been lifted out of poverty. That is an encouraging start and the JMC on poverty will enable us to take this much further. My noble friend asked about the agenda. It is open to any Member of either Houses to write to a Minister and suggest that this be looked at.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment on the question of agriculture? That is a devolved matter but negotiations are in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. It is very important indeed that there should be close cooperation and joint efforts to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up the money he could get out of Europe if he would pay his whack in this country. At present agriculture needs that money.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords. as the noble Lord will be aware, there is a concordat with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is up to the UK department and the departments in the devolved administrations to work out a co-ordinated policy for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Young: My Lords, further to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on student fees, does the noble Baroness agree that the unbelievably confused situation which seems to have arisen as a result of the Government's policy would not have arisen had the policy that was produced in the House of Lords been accepted by the Government?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I do not believe that there is confusion. The position is perfectly straightforward; the UK government policy is

229
perfectly straightforward; and what is being announced in Scotland is perfectly straightforward. I see no confusion.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness told the House that there were no ministerial committee meetings on the subject of student fees. Did ministerial "meetings" take place by telephone to discuss this policy—and if not, why not? The result of the two different policies north and south of the Border has resulted in discrimination against Scottish students at English universities and against English students at Scottish universities inside what is still supposed to be one United Kingdom. Was there communication between Whitehall and Edinburgh?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, it is the noble Lord who is confused now. Of course there is communication between Whitehall and the devolved administrations. There is constant communication between UK departments and Ministers, or, in the case of the Welsh Assembly, Assembly members. Joint ministerial committee meetings would be called if there was perceived to be a problem that could not be resolved in the normal communication and activities between the two groups of officials. No issue in relation to student fees or any other matter has necessitated that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, did they communicate by telephone?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord insists on asking that question. I am sure that they did. They communicate all the time by every modern form of communication.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my question as to whether the proceedings will be made public, and therefore communicated to the public?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am not sure which proceedings the noble Lord means. If he means joint ministerial committee meetings, of which none has taken place, those would be covered by the usual procedure and the details of minutes would not be covered. As to concordats, there are copies of all of them in the Library. They are open and transparent.

Government Special Advisers
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated total cost of the Government's special advisers in the current financial year as compared to 1996–97 and what changes there have been in their duties and responsibilities.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the estimated cost of special advisers in the current financial year is £4 million. That compares to £1.8 million in 1996–97. With the exception of up to three posts in the Prime Minister's office, special advisers are appointed for the purposes of providing advice to Ministers. Successive administrations have used special advisers in that way.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, can I take it that there has been no overall change in the duties and responsibilities of special advisers? Given that they have unparalleled access to Ministers and, apparently, a "licence to leak" on behalf of Ministers, should there not be some standard as regards their qualifications? At present, most seem to have very little experience outside either academia or Westminster. I understand that the number of special advisers at No. 10 has gone up from eight under the previous administration to 25. Surely such a huge increase with no change in duties and responsibilities must, sadly, imply a lack of confidence on the part of the Prime Minister in the advice of his senior official civil servants—for example, the Secretary of the Cabinet or his Principal Private Secretary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it certainly implies no such lack of confidence. There is no basis for such a suggestion. The Neill Committee states in its report that special advisers have a very valuable role to play. The evidence of the First Division Association, the trade union for senior civil servants, said:
"Members say that a good Special Adviser is well worth having in any department … it is also fair to say that this government has used its special advisers in a much more upfront way. A good Special Adviser is an asset in a department, both to the Minister and the Civil Service".
The special adviser helps the Minister. He helps the civil servants in the department as well by providing a useful interface between the two.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, leaving aside the party political points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as my noble and learned friend has quoted the Neill Committee, do the Government agree with the committee's Recommendations 19 and 20 in its sixth report that in a proposed Civil Service Act a specific limit should be named, and that any increase beyond that limit should be subject to resolutions of both Houses?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have indicated that they are considering all the recommendations in the Neill Committee report. They are very serious. The report is both weighty and worth while. We need to respond in a considered way rather than piecemeal. There is no suggestion at present that the numbers of special advisers are in any sense swamping the senior Civil Service. The senior Civil Service consists of 3,500 people. Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, has said:
"I do not think the senior Civil Service of 3.500 people is in any danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers".
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there has been an extraordinarily large increase, not only in numbers but in cost to the taxpayer. Would it not be more reasonable if some of that cost—of what are essentially partisan political activities—was borne by the Labour Party rather than the taxpayer?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the evidence of Neill Committee report states, as was suggested by the evidence given to the committee by the First Division Association, and as Sir Richard Wilson suggests, special advisers improve the quality of government. The increase in cost is approximately £2.2 million. That is money well spent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the Minister noted that in his native Edinburgh the First Minister has lost two of his three special advisers in the last two or three months? Do they come under the heading of "good special advisers" when he has managed to lose two out of three? Furthermore, why does the Secretary of State for Scotland still need two special advisers when almost all his responsibilities have been devolved to Edinburgh? Is it in order that he can continue his "tough wars" with the First Minister in Scotland?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to special advisers to the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, I can think of no more inappropriate person than myself to answer, so I shall pass. In regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I have said, special advisers contribute to good government, both in his case and in that of other Ministers.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I do not deny that "a" special adviser is a good thing. I had one when I was Minister for the Arts, and when I was at the Home Office the Home Secretary had one. Why does the present Home Secretary need four or five? That is the unexplained point, particularly if there is no change in their duties or responsibilities. If I remember the recommendations of the Neill Committee correctly, did not the noble Lord give the very clear hint that in his view the presence of so many special advisers could be a cause of distress and concern to official advisers; that is, civil servants?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the response of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, which I quoted, indicates that it is not a cause for concern at the moment. As to the numbers, I dealt with that point in answer to my noble friend Lord Barnett. Special advisers contribute to good government and are regarded within the Civil Service as being of value to it. I believe that the numbers are a matter of judgment.

Yugoslavia: Proceedings against UK
2.50 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the proceedings brought against the United Kingdom by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government are confident of the strength of their case should the Yugoslav application ever reach the Merits stage. We regard this case as a shameless and opportunistic abuse of the Court, whose jurisdiction was accepted by Belgrade only three days before launching its application. The UK has substantial legal arguments for resisting the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's application at the preliminary stage.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I accept that there is a view among some international lawyers that the use of force is justified to avert humanitarian catastrophes, despite the clear language of Article 2 of the charter. Does the noble Baroness agree that there is also a great deal of authority the other way? Therefore, since the point is obviously one of major importance for the future of the United Nations, is it not better to let the International Court of Justice decide the point in issue—that is what it is there for—to affirm the existence of the so-called humanitarian exception, perhaps with the assistance of the Attorney-General and, above all, define the limits of the exception rather than take what I continue to regard as a thoroughly technical objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, which can only delay a decision on the merits?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I understand the import of what the noble and learned Lord says in relation to this issue. However, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's case is a propaganda measure. It accepted the Court's jurisdiction only three days before it launched its application and seeks to deflect the blame by suggesting that NATO has responsibility for what happened in Kosovo. Milosevic is clearly responsible and has been indicted. We are confident that we have a strong legal case and will fight the Yugoslav case on its merits if we have to. We have a strong and substantial argument on jurisdiction and admissibility. If we have to send a clear message it must be that people like Milosevic cannot seek to take adventitious advantage of the procedure, which is precisely what he seeks to do in this case. We cannot let him get away with it.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is it not the case that when Yugoslavia lodged its case on 29th April of last year and Mr John Morris appeared before the

233
court he and his team argued purely on the grounds of a technicality, thus depriving public opinion in this country, and the world, of a definitive ruling on whether NATO's action was or was not within international law? If the Government have a good case, why do they not allow it to be judged by the court?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is completely wrong in relation to this matter. The issue before the Court was a preliminary matter. As one knows, when dealing with a preliminary matter one should stick to the point. We did so and answered the point, and the Court found in our favour.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will my noble friend resist the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who appear to argue that this is essentially a legal and not a political matter? Can she confirm that the Government regard the setting of international limits on the doctrine of overwhelming humanitarian necessity to justify an intervention essentially as a political matter, which will have to be discussed in great detail among the various countries which are the prime movers in the United Nations? Can my noble friend tell the House whether such discussions are under way; if not, when does she hope that they will begin?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the international discussions are incredibly important, and Britain is doing all that she can to raise these issues. Discussion is already taking place with our international partners and will continue to be pursued later in the spring.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will recall her eloquent defence of NATO in last night's debate. As to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, can she tell the House something about the need to pursue war criminals in a situation where, in the absence of such steps and evidence, there is too great a tendency for people in Kosovo to take the law into their own hands?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly confirm what the noble Baroness says. It is important that these matters are taken seriously. We have played our part in identifying those who have committed crimes, and we have been, and will continue to be, supportive in pursuing those matters. This is a matter that the Government take very seriously. As always, there is much good sense in what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of some of the Minister's responses, can she say whether Her Majesty's Government now regard Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, especially that part which deals with non-interference in the affairs of other states, to be non-operative?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those provisions are operative. Those in this Chamber and
234
elsewhere who have to grapple with issues that arise from humanitarian disasters are aware that this is a matter on which we are moving forward internationally. This is an important issue—some would say of equal importance to the other elements of the Charter.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, does the Minister concede that in its hearings on the provisional measures the ICJ stated that,
"under the present circumstances … [this] raises very serious issues of international law"?
Furthermore, in light of the Foreign Secretary's belief that it is right that the action taken in Kosovo should,
"become the basis for an approach to future conflict",
does the noble Baroness agree that it is critical that the rules of international law on such military intervention should be spelt out more clearly than they have been so far?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is important that that should happen. However, the case brought by Slobodan Milosevic is not the only way in which that issue can be addressed. The difficulty is that he has been able to do something which is quite wrong. The international community is looking at the issue and seeks to define the basis on which it can act together in future, and that must be the most efficacious way to proceed.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, if the Government are so confident about the advice that they have received from the Attorney-General and his predecessor, is it possible for that to be published so that we can all benefit from it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be aware from his long experience in dealing with these matters that neither the advice nor the substance of the case can at this stage be published. Obviously, once the case has been heard and dealt with matters may change.

Tharcisse Muvunyi
2.58 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had approaches from the United Nations War Crimes Prosecutor for the extradition of Tharcisse Muvunyi in connection with genocide in Rwanda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, it is government policy not to discuss whether extradition requests have been received in individual cases. I would, however, stress that we strongly support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established specifically to prosecute the

235
appalling atrocities in that country in 1994. The tribunal has extensive powers to request assistance from states, and we have assisted it in the past.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the House has just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, that the Government wish to identify any war criminals. Can the Minister say whether any investigation by the Metropolitan Police is ongoing to identify this man as a possible war criminal?
Furthermore, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement that there is no hiding place for war criminals and in so far as we are able we shall bring them to justice, what action are the Government taking to bring this alleged war criminal to justice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are fully in tune with our international obligations as regards the prosecution of war criminals.
It is unusual to comment on individual cases. However, I can advise the House and the noble Lord that I understand that the police are considering material submitted to them about allegations of torture by Lieutenant-Colonel Muvunyi.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, why did Her Majesty's Government allow a well-known war criminal, Lieutenant-Colonel Muvunyi—known as "the commander"—and his family to enter and live in the UK? Have they been given political asylum here until 2002, as reported?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am unable to advise on individual immigration cases. That would be wholly inappropriate for reasons that I am sure the noble Baroness fully understands. I understand that that has been the practice adopted by governments for many years.
Lieutenant-Colonel Muvunyi followed his family here. That remains the case. At that stage we were not aware of allegations against Lieutenant-Colonel Muvunyi.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the Minister cannot answer that question, perhaps he can answer this one. Is this man in this country on the basis that he seeks asylum?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on Lieutenant-Colonel Muvunyi's immigration status.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, from time to time we are advised of the number of asylum seekers in this country. Is the Minister saying that those people cannot be identified in any way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in this instance I am unable to provide that informatlion. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, has the UN prosecutor the power himself to apply for extradition or does it have to come from government to government?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not have an extradition treaty with Rwanda. It is for the International Criminal Tribunal to make any applications to this country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there has been no request from
236
the International War Crimes Tribunal or from the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda? If there were such a request, can the Minister pledge to the House that the request would be taken seriously and considered by the Home Office in order to uphold government policy on this matter?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course, we would completely fulfil our international obligations; and we would, of course, respond positively to any such request.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is this new doctrine: that this House cannot discuss individual immigration cases? Have there not been countless debates on the Floor of this House about individual cases?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have outlined the situation. I understand that it is the same as it has always been.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in the light of the escalating asylum figures, and the appalling processing figures, what steps are the Government taking to prevent war criminals entering this country as bogus asylum seekers and then living on social security?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have an active immigration policy. We have an index and register at our ports. We properly vet people when they come to this country. We shall continue to do so to the best of our ability. That is the position. That was the position under the previous government. No doubt they were as successful as we hope to be in the future.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, can the Minister explain further why he states that it is inappropriate for him to answer those questions? Whether or not this man is an asylum seeker is a simple question which deserves a factual answer. The House deserves that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as a matter of course and of policy we do not usually discuss and debate individual applications that may be made to our Government. That has always been the case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister think just for a moment? Does he accept that if judicial proceedings involve anyone concerned with immigration, of course no mention is made of that matter in this House; but does the noble Lord accept that time and again mention is made of cases, and properly so, when they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in the circumstances to which the noble Lord draws my attention, there is, admittedly, widespread debate about immigration and asylum matters. That is right and proper.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, what advice can the Minister give about how the House may proceed to

237
understand the facts underlying this case if the noble Lord continues to shelter behind the doctrine that it is none of our business?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these issues are, of course, important for public debate. The point I make is that it would be invidious to discuss personal circumstances of certain individuals. That must be right and proper.

National Health Service
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege rose to call attention to the state of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in opening the debate I should like, first, to declare an interest as an executive director of MJM Healthcare Solutions, a consultancy firm serving the National Health Service. Like so many of your Lordships, I am also connected with several charities and professional bodies associated with the service.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I wonder whether those noble Lords who are leaving could do so quietly so that we might give the noble Baroness the courtesy of being able to hear what she says.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It was not of great interest. However, I hope that the following will be.
I grew up in the National Health Service. My father joined it in 1948 and, since patients came to the house, in my home we literally had blood on the carpet.
I know the Minister, if not from a medical family, has had a distinguished career in the National Health Service. As the former director of the NHS Confederation he won great respect not only from a succession of Ministers but also from within the field.
He and I worked closely together in our former lives; and I believe that neither of us can take any pleasure in the current problems of the National Health Service. It is like a fond but ageing aunt who through wear and tear is beginning to disintegrate. Neither of us wishes to watch this painful demise and, more importantly, nor do the people of this country. All parties, all peoples, are willing the NHS to succeed. We are terribly proud of it, and rightly so. The ethic is superb, but the delivery is wanting—not least because, like most government-run business, it suffers from the vagaries of politicians and the intransigence of the Treasury.
In this House we can have a civilised debate in the hope that the views of your Lordships are heard by the Minister and incorporated into policy. The Minister is able to talk freely in the almost certain knowledge that
238
this debate is verging on the confidential, and if our views do emerge in government policy we shall not crow about it.
In the past 20 years we have watched governments divest themselves of the management of many industries from airlines to utilities. There are now even reports that the Government want all council housing sold by 2010, and stakeholder pensions to replace SERPS.
The Government are relaxing their hold on housing and social security, yet both are as important to people's health and well-being as are doctors, nurses, medicines and equipment. Yet in sharp contrast, the Government tenaciously keep a grip on the NHS in the belief that they can manage it successfully.
As a past Minister, I know that managing the National Health Service from Westminster and Whitehall is near impossible, especially with a centralised regime, as is this one. The NHS is truly a people's service and it needs sensitivity and intimate knowledge to make it work. But the challenges today are greater than style, organisation and form. Quite simply, the people's service is failing to keep pace with the people's expectations. Long waiting times, cancelled operations, days on trolleys, round trips of hundreds of miles to find an intensive care bed are simply not acceptable to people belonging to the world's fifth largest economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has said,
"The truth is that our services are much the worst in Europe".
In his recent interview on "Breakfast with Frost", the Prime Minister said:
"I am not going to sit here and say that there aren't problems in the NHS because there are and we have got to put them right".
I am not going to stand here and say that there were no problems in the NHS when we were in government, because there were, and we tried to put them right. The difference is that now we have a Labour Government which can make changes which will always be denied to a Conservative government. What is more, this Government pride themselves on their modernising zeal, a zeal which should focus on the NHS because those who work in it and those who use it no longer believe that the NHS is sustainable in its present form. Even the BMA, with a tradition of resistance to change, is seeking better solutions. The time is right for change.
The NHS is the largest and most complex service industry in the UK. It is run by a board of directors, Ministers, who are largely amateurs—though of course I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and they are appointed and disappointed by acts of capriciousness; hardly the best way to appoint a top management team.
We all know that in the lifetime of a parliament, when a serious crisis occurs, there is pressure to "do something", and all a government can do within the timescale is to change the organisation. So there follows a time of disruption and huge expenditure. Those involved, fearful of losing their jobs, worry about where they will fit into these new structures.

239
Understandably, they concentrate on the new bureaucracy and not the proper care of patients. In the vernacular, they take their eye off the ball.
Primary care groups, which came live in April—just 10 months ago—are already having to consider changes in geographical boundaries, mergers with neighbouring groups and disbanding their boards in order to become a different animal: a primary care trust. Managers in the health service are continually having to reapply for their jobs and as a consequence they get fed up and they leave. We need good managers, we need to keep them and, of course, many of these people come from clinical backgrounds: top nurses, midwives, professions supplementary to medicine and so on.
The irony is that users of the health service are totally unconcerned with organisational structures, just as they are disinterested in the management of, say, Tesco, where they want a quality product at a price they can afford. For the money they invest in the NHS through taxation, people want skilled doctors, compassionate nurses, prompt attention and successful outcomes.
Crises occur when the delivery of service fails, when people lie on trolleys, when operations are cancelled. Changing a committee structure or reorganising management hierarchies achieves little, if not in fact a considerable retreat.
Nearly 20 years ago when I first tried to tackle waiting lists, I found that people had waited seven years for a hip replacement. For those still alive, we packed them off to a private hospital paid for by the NHS. They were delighted to have been treated. They may have been surprised at being sent to a private hospital, but people in pain, people in fear of their lives, really do not care about committee structures or the political ideology of the system. They want to be treated.
As the Minister will remember, the greatest incentive I had when chairman of the South West Thames region was to overtake the Mersey region in the league tables. I was continually telling my people, "We have got to beat Mersey"—beat it on the shortest waiting times, the best run hospitals, the best clinical practice and the most comprehensive community services. Competition was a spur to ratchet up standards.
I would never claim that any region or any government can avoid every crisis in the NHS, but I believe that even the Minister will agree that this winter has been exceptionally bad. It is not acceptable that a bout of flu should cause such misery and havoc.
To meet the crises it is essential to have all options open. The NHS ought not to exclude as a matter of principle the private sector. It is inconsistent to do so when so much of the NHS is already privatised: private finance initiatives to build hospitals; the supply of medicines and equipment; contracted laundry and catering services and path labs are all examples. Competition is both a spur and a discipline. The Prime Minister has offered us the prospect of considerably more spending. We now know that, it is subject to
240
sorting out some questionable maths and the small Brown print, but it is even more important that financial discipline should be maintained when new money is provided. But I really do believe that money alone is not sufficient.
What is lacking in the NHS is that the vast majority of the staff has no feeling of enfranchisement and no ownership. The deluge of new initiatives that spin their way from No. 10, and occasionally from No. 79, removes the incentive to experiment and to use personal inventiveness. It is remarkable that both this Government and the last planned to put the budget into the hands of GPs, who defend their position as "independent contractors". They feel ownership of general practice; though the least controllable, they are the most trusted. That should teach us something.
In the two reports in which I have been heavily involved, one on maternity services and the other on community nursing, the thrust was to give people power—mothers to choose how their babies are to he born, people to choose whether to see a doctor or a nurse; and at the same time to enfranchise midwives and community nurses to enable them to prescribe and to take responsibility. Where this happens—and I have witnessed it—recruiting and retaining staff is not a problem. Indeed, where caseload midwifery is introduced there is a waiting list—a waiting list for midwives to work in those units.
The pull in such a politicised service is always towards the centre, to Whitehall. Yet most politicians have only a scant knowledge of how healthcare is delivered to people. They only know about organisations. We are all trapped in a marvellously pure ideology, the ideal socialist dream. We all have to have dreams, but this one does not work. It does not work because it is isolated in a brutally competitive world which generates the money for unreal dreams.
Pure socialism in health works, or does not work, when it is set in a socialist world with a population which embraces it; every man or woman according to their needs, sharing and caring for each other. But I must admit that I am ashamed to say that this ideal has been overwhelmed by litigation; self interest has overcome the common good. It may be disappointing, but even new Labour has buried the socialist ideal.
So we have to devise a system which reflects today's ethic, the will of the people rather than their dreams. The awful realisation that the NHS may not he the best health service in the world is dawning. This is infinitely sad and it must be put right.
With elections looming, and the knowledge that changes take time, what is acceptable and what is not requires political reality, but there is always an opportunity for innovation, experiments, pilot schemes and evolution rather than revolution. Some might advocate putting a hospital or two under private management if only to prove that the Government can do it better. Again, a precedent was set in a totally different service: the prisons. If that is a bridge too far, we could try running one or more trusts as cooperatives with staff owning all the shares. We have to make staff feel real ownership in what they do; that

241
they are both appreciated and rewarded for personal success as well as the success of their trust, primary care group or health authority.
We have to be humble enough to accept that time and again governments are proved to be poor managers and that other countries happily mix private and public healthcare to provide a better service, if not a better ethic. There is no need for a big-bang change. We can be broad minded, try and then pick the winners. What is so sad is that this Government ring-fence cash to ensure that their will is done. Central control produces mindless freaks and the arrogance of government in believing that they know the priorities of Truro and Barnsley, Medway and Mersey is facile.
We now have to restore the confidence of the British people in their National Health Service. I now believe that with their ISA, with the coming stakeholder pensions, people have got beyond believing that only through allocations from general taxation will we achieve an NHS of which to be proud. People are losing ownership of the NHS. It belongs, as the Minister will have discerned, to the Treasury. It is the Treasury which, scrabbling around in the till, decides who should be happy and who should not.
I would suggest that we should all pay, each according to his means, an NHS insurance premium, with everybody paying something so that all are enfranchised. The NHS will then compete against all corners. It should, like so many industries, have a regulator or an inspector, as we have for schools, enforcing standards, insisting on efficiency, dedicated to quality, owned by the people and at arm's length from politicians. The Commission for Health Improvement goes a little way towards meeting that requirement.
The NHS premium payment would be set, like the BBC licence fee, with some political involvement. Everyone with insufficient income would have their premium topped up from general taxation. Of course this is called "means testing", but then general taxation, which now pays for the NHS, is means tested. We should not be fearful. It would be an insurance payment which everyone understood.
Income tax could fall, allowances could be made for those with private insurance and private expertise could be used. It may cause a furore among old Labour, but who wants old Labour? Certainly not new Labour. We now know that creating more and more Ministers in England and, as we heard today, doubling the number of political advisers, have failed to get patients off trolleys. We should wrestle the management of the NHS away from the politicians. I believe that with my new funding arrangements that would be largely possible.
I am not advocating privatising the NHS. An undiluted private health insurance scheme is not the answer. With current schemes, so much seems to be excluded. And just when the need is greatest the premiums become unaffordable. But, strangely, even when patients from private hospital care are admitted to NHS hospitals because things have gone wrong there
242
are very few publicly expressed complaints. This is because people pay for something specific; they have ownership and loyalty. That is what people are trying to feel for the NHS, but it is ebbing away. I do not blame this Government entirely—it is largely the passage of time and changes in attitudes.
The NHS and the people are wise enough and experienced enough to be weaned from the wet nurse state onto something more modern and solid. This Government are the government who can achieve it if they have the foresight, the wisdom and, above all, the courage. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has a long record of involvement in the National Health Service. Her report on community nursing, to which she referred, was one of the few published during the past 17 years to which I could fully subscribe.
One of my failings is that I sometimes indulge in mixed metaphors. When thinking about this debate, I was conjuring up a picture of the possibility of a fox in the NHS chicken coop—a Dr Fox—together with a concept of a Trojan Horse. Perhaps a mixed metaphor too far. But, then, perhaps not!
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but one does not have to be when one looks at the juxtaposition of two recent events. The first was Dr Liam Fox's description of a patient's guarantee. It sounds like good medicine, except that it turns out not to be what is on the label. Neither is it a placebo. Instead, Dr Fox said that it was "perhaps a Trojan Horse".
Secondly, we had the talking up of the difficulties arising from the influenza epidemic as a crisis, aided by parts of the media which were clearly intent on finding a crisis, whether real or imagined, with a view to dropping a match into the NHS petrol tank.
It would be foolish to suggest that there are no difficulties facing the NHS. Equally, it would not be sensible for the party opposite to suggest, as is suggested in another place, that they are the making of the present Government. For example, one cannot blame this Government for the reduction in nurses in training or in practice. We know that it takes three years to train a nurse—and more when one takes into account the time waiting to enter university and eventually becoming a proficient clinical practitioner. Many hospitals could open wards today, but there is a dearth of nursing staff.
In the mid-1980s there were in England some 3,988 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff. In 1997, the figure was 3,500 whole-time equivalents. I greatly value the essential contribution made by skilled managers and administrative staff to the health service, but let us look at the staffing figures. The 1987 figure for England was just under 114,000 whole-time equivalent administrative staff. By 1997, it was more than 153,000.
One can perhaps draw one's own conclusion about the priorities of the previous government. Were they clinical priorities, or were they the priorities of

243
competition between hospitals in the internal market, which, happily, this Government have ended? And why else could it be that in the past few weeks managers and clinicians struggled to find beds, whether in ordinary wards or in critical care units, for patients with complications arising from the flu epidemic? Could it be because the number of hospital beds was reduced by one-third between 1979 and 1997?
Of course there must be continuing review, rationalisation and change in the health service. Medicine, surgery and psychiatry are all changing. But I venture to suggest that the bed cuts can go too far. I well remember being lectured by a Minister of Health in the previous government about the virtues of the Tomlinson Report on London hospitals. Events have, of course, proved him wrong. The Tomlinson Report was an object lesson in ensuring that co-operation between the health service, universities and other training institutions should be just that—co-operation. Care must be taken to ensure that the tail of the providers of education does not wag the National Health Service dog.
I welcome the fact that the Government have set up an inquiry under Sir Clive Smee into the provision of hospital beds. I look forward to his report and I hope that Sir Clive will also take account of the issues of future bed cuts which might arise from the PFI hospital building programme. We cannot continue to base future bed number assumptions on ever-faster patient throughput and on more and more day surgery. Too often, fast throughput leads to the revolving door. Beds are not always freed up and that can lead to great distress to patient and family.
I welcome the abolition of the internal market and the introduction of a new system of co-operation. I welcome the end of queue jumping by GP fundholding practices. As a nurse, I reject anything other than clinical need as a basis for priority.
NHS Direct proved itself during the recent flu epidemic. Even many detractors in the medical profession, who perhaps fear nurse-led initiatives, have come on board. Nurse-led, walk-in centres and the creation of nurse consultants are long overdue initiatives, but no less welcome for that. I look forward to their development.
Needless to say, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement about bringing spending up to the EU average. Yes, it will take time. There needs to be change so that the NHS becomes more user-friendly. There is, indeed, much more to be done. But I reject the real agenda of those who talk up crisis after crisis. I return to the Shadow Minister, Dr Fox, who spoke to a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference last October. He said:
"I think what we are proposing will revolutionise private health insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s".
Even those with short memories will remember some of the negative fall-out from that particular revolution.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said regarding the average patient not being concerned about structures. However, I believe that the population is concerned about the philosophy
244
of funding the National Health Service. I do not believe that the Trojan Horse strategy will fool the public, despite the Shadow Minister's apparent assertion that they, the public, have not thought through the implications of the Conservative agenda.
I believe that the party opposite wants the National Health Service to deal with the expensive and the uninsurable. It hopes that its Trojan Horse will lead to privatisation, with patients paying for insurance and health charges, and no doubt for all minor surgery. I think not, my Lords. It would be much more sensible to recognise that the rhetoric of crisis, which has bedevilled every debate about health funding in this country, is as deeply harmful as it is destabilising.
Of course public and professional expectations will always be ratcheted upwards. Medical and pharmaceutical breakthroughs will always follow those expectations upwards. Better than rhetoric, which is great fun, is serious debate which acknowledges that this Government have made a respectable funding increase for the National Health Service and are tackling difficult issues. I hope that with serious debate we can concentrate on many difficult issues, such as priorities in tertiary care. If we do not do that, we shall be back in a crisis again, and next time it might be a real crisis.
3.32 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, part of the difficulty with the Motion we are addressing is that the current state of the National Health Service is, to some extent at least, a matter of perception. Some parts of the NHS are of world-class standing; others, to put it at its mildest, fall decidedly short of that. However, if we wish to find a measure of the NHS's performance that depends more on fact than on subjective judgment surely we could do worse than examine the comparative data on health outcomes across Europe and the developed world.
In the year 2000, Britain—the world's fifth largest economy—has one of the worst records in Europe of deaths from coronary heart disease. Long-term cancer survival rates in this country are way below those of Germany or the United States. On their own, the prevalence of those two causes of death should prompt us to ask ourselves some searching questions about the kind of service which the NHS is now delivering and what can be done to improve it.
In highlighting those issues, I seek to make only one non-party political point: that there is a widely held view that, despite the commitment and expertise of those who work for it, the NHS is failing us. That view is reinforced by the intense pressures experienced by hospital upon hospital during the recent winter flu crisis. Those pressures were entirely predictable and, only a few years ago, would have been absorbed with relative ease. We read, too, of,
"people spending hours on trolleys waiting for admission. patients being discharged more quickly than is safe, and surgical beds being filled with medical emergencies, leading to even longer waiting lists"—
not my words, but those of Professor Sir George Alberti, President of the Royal College of' Physicians and a friend of this Government.

245
When the noble Lord, Lord Winston, speaks, as he will today, it is right that we should sit up and listen to him. I do not seek to misrepresent the noble Lord in any way and I hope that I do not. However, if there was one emotional thread that seemed to run through his recent comments about the NHS (even though he later qualified those comments) it was, I venture to say, a mixture of sadness and frustration and the feeling that the NHS which we know today is, as he put it, a "gradually deteriorating service".
As the noble Lord observed, the Government's usual reaction when confronted by a less than flattering commentary on the NHS is to blame it all on the previous administration. It has not escaped my notice—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie—that the Conservatives fought and lost the last election. However, the commitment of the last administration to the NHS should no more be doubted than that of the present Government. Between 1979 and 1997 NHS spending increased by 74 per cent in real terms. That period saw capital investment go up by 66 per cent in real terms, including the largest sustained building programme in the history of the NHS. Nurses' pay went up by 67 per cent and nurse numbers by 55,000. By the end of the Conservative Government there were 23,000 more doctors and dentists than there had been at the beginning. That is no mean record.
The record of the present Government will, of course, be apparent only at the end of their term of office. They have promised substantial additional sums for the NHS and those are most welcome, even if the Government's manner of presenting their figures owes something to the art of spin. Yet, all the time, spin or no spin, the demands that are being placed on the service are outstripping its capacity to deliver.
If this country comes out badly on output comparisons, the same is no less true of inputs. The UK has the second lowest number of doctors per head of any country in Europe. Germany has twice as many as we do; Italy three times as many. Despite our poor performance in cancer survival rates, the amount we spend per head on chemotherapy is a third of what is spent in France. It is only 6 per cent of the per capita spend in America. Those are not short-term deficiencies in the NHS; they are systemic.
The Government have already made substantial changes to the health service. The Minister reminded us of some of them last week. I suggest that the jury is still out on most of them; notably, NICE, primary care groups and NHS Direct. But with the best will in the world, none of those, however much they may come to prove themselves, can do more than scratch the surface of the larger issues to which I have referred.
If there is one area where I fear that the Government's reforms have done real damage, it is in our specialist referral centres. Before the reforms, a doctor could refer a patient to a specialist in another part of the country if he believed that that was clinically appropriate. Yes, there was some bureaucracy involved to ensure that the money
246
followed the patient. However, the freedom to refer was there. Now the money does not follow the patient. As a result, the system acts as a deterrent to out-of-area tertiary referrals. My fear is that some of our centres of excellence will simply wither on the vine and that, simultaneously, patients who need a higher degree of expert care will not get it. That is a heavy price to pay for getting rid of some paperwork.
The Government have, of course, recognised cancer as a priority issue. However, nothing we have seen or heard from them will remotely address the gap that needs to be bridged. Professor Karol Sikora, our leading expert in cancer, has described the Government's so-called "cancer pledge" as window dressing. If we are to improve our record in combating cancer we need several hundred more specialists, much more equipment and more chemotherapy. That is the investment which the Government must make if they are serious about cancer.
If it is true that the problems of the NHS are systemic, the issue comes down to resources; not a small amount of money, but very substantial sums indeed. That is what the Prime Minister recognised when he spoke on television a few days ago. He spoke of our reaching the EU average in healthcare spending within five years. That sounded at first like a bold new promise but a couple of days later it bore all the hallmarks of policy-making on the hoof. The Prime Minister now says that his words were not a promise but that he is confident that the target can be achieved. That is pie in the sky. There is not a respectable economist around who thinks it remotely realistic, let alone sustainable in terms of the effect on the wider economy.
The trouble with the Government's position is that they are inflexibly set on the idea that healthcare should, wherever possible, be delivered by a monopolistic state provider. Nobody in the country, no political party, wants to do other than support and improve the NHS. But only the Labour Party has set its face against promoting a mixed economy of state and private health provision. In this it is out of step with every other developed country in the world. It is the extent of private, more than public, spending that differentiates the British health system from those of France, Germany, Holland and Denmark. I believe that, sooner or later, we shall need to encourage many more people to provide for some part of their own healthcare and in so doing relieve the burden on the NHS.
If in pursuing their health policy the Government are intent on remaining a one-club golfer, they must show why they are choosing to ignore the alternatives. All sides agree that total capacity in healthcare provision needs to expand. The question to the Government is: how will they bring that about?
3.41 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating this important debate. I apologise to both the noble Baroness and the Minister for the fact that a

247
longstanding engagement means that I shall not be able to he here to wind up on behalf of these Benches. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood for stepping into the breach with such enthusiasm.
The state of the NHS is by far the biggest issue for the general public, as recent opinion polls show. Delivery on the NHS will be crucial to the Government's election chances. The key question will be whether they have delivered on the promise made before the last general election to save the NHS.
Several of the reforms the Government have made since the general election have been welcomed on these Benches: NHS Direct, the setting up of primary care groups and trusts; the much greater emphasis placed on clinical governance; the setting up of CHI, the Commission for Health Improvement; the acceptance that evidence-based medicine must lie at the heart of the management of the NHS; and the institution of NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. But why is the Secretary of State hiding behind it by giving it "affordability" as one of its criteria for approval of drugs and new treatments?
We also welcome the rolling out of national service frameworks. Until the flu crisis, the Government convinced themselves that some of the longstanding problems of the NHS, bequeathed by the previous government, were being tackled. But once again, during that crisis, we had the sight or patients waiting on trolleys for hours while a bed was found. Even then the Government thought that declaring an epidemic early, before the 400 cases per 100,000 figure was reached, would give them a cast-iron alibi.
After the recent crisis, it is clear that the Government miscalculated massively. By sticking to the spending plans of the previous government in their first two years yet making exaggerated claims about the amount of money they are spending now, they have raised public expectations. There is little they can now do to meet such expectations in the next 18 months or so before the next general election.
It is clear that there are huge problems. There is a lack of beds, particularly for intensive care. Doctors and managers warned of impending problems before Christmas. According to the NHS Confederation, most trusts are operating at 95 per cent capacity which makes it impossible to run an adequate system. Year on year, so-called "efficiency savings" have cut into the essential capacity of the NHS.
Where is the national beds inquiry report? Is it simply that the conclusions are too embarrassing to publish? Where is the corroboration of those 100 extra intensive care beds which the Government claim to have provided this year? The problem is exacerbated by the lack of resources for older people to transfer from acute hospitals to nursing and residential homes.
There is a massive shortage of nurses—17,000 against 8,000 when the Government came into office— and midwives. The consequence has been a disgraceful further rise in expenditure on agency nurses from £264 million in 1998–99 to £344 million in 1999–2000.
248
Despite the new deal for junior doctors, their hours are spiralling out of control with one-third working more than the nationally agreed limits.
As regards health trusts and authorities, their combined deficit this year will be at least £400 million. Worse is to come in the next financial year. Yet the first instinct of the Secretary of State and the chief executive of the NHS was to shoot the messenger, not to respond to the problem. Their behaviour is similar to that of No. 10.
Postcode rationing exists for essential treatments such as the chemotherapy drugs Taxol and Taxotere; Aricept for Alzheimer's; Beta interferon for multiple sclerosis; and Clozapine for schizophrenia. Those are all well-accepted cases of postcode prescribing. As mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, outcomes in the key areas of cancer and cardiac illness compare extremely unfavourably with almost every other European country. Cancer survival rates, for example, are worse than those in Poland. As also mentioned by the noble Earl, there is an extremely poor ratio of doctors to patients, worse than in almost all OECD countries. Finally in this category of failure, we come to the issue of mixed-sex wards, which we debated a few days ago. The Government have failed to meet their pre-election pledge to phase them out by the end of 1999.
Many such problems clearly have their roots in a lack of resources. The key question that now needs to be answered is: what is the Government's commitment of NHS spending and where do they propose to raise the money? They also need to answer the question of why they are persisting with their tax cut this April of 1p in the pound rather than spending the £2 billion or so raised on the NHS as the public clearly want them to do. What precisely is the Government's pledge as expressed by the Prime Minister? Will the Minister make that clear? Is it to reach the European average ratio of health spending to GDP within five years? Is it to raise real spending on health each year for the next five years by 5 per cent in real terms? Indeed, is it an aspiration, a commitment, or both? They may have a 10-year plan, but there is little comfort for those who wish to see early improvements in the health service.
The Government are clearly in a spin, in more ways than one. This is a millennium wheel of their own construction. Let us have some hard commitments. The one fact I am clear about concerning the events of the past fortnight is that those with an interest in the future of the health service have the noble Lord, Lord Winston, to thank for extracting what pledges are now on the table.
Increased expenditure on private insurance, as the Conservative Party seems to believe, is not the answer. I am perfectly happy with a mixed economy in health. Indeed, use of spare capacity in the independent sector makes sense. But I believe that the NHS should be a comprehensive service, free at the point of delivery and we should not be incentivising patients to obtain their treatment outside the health service.
Unlike the Conservative Party I have confidence in the future of the NHS and the willingness of the British people to pay for it. Set by the side of their so-called

249
tax guarantee, which assured us of an ever-falling rate of tax, how can that amount to a commitment to the NHS?
These are the problems of today with which the Government have failed to deal. They have also not yet come to grips with the problems of tomorrow. I refer, in particular, to the issue of long-term care for the elderly. Despite the elapsing of many months since the Royal Commission report on long-term care for the elderly, we have still not had a proper government response.
In conclusion, this Government have a long way to go before they stand a chance of convincing us that the NHS is on the path to recovery.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it is almost 55 years since I graduated in medicine. Since 1948 I have been a fervent supporter of the National Health Service in which I worked for much of my professional life, first as a consultant and subsequently as a clinical academic. Then, some eight years ago, I received a letter from the Oxford Health Authority telling me that now I have reached a certain age I can visit the hospital for social reasons but cannot use the clinical facilities. However, I have kept in touch with the NHS since that time.
Since I began to work in the NHS I and many other professionals have repeatedly pointed out that the percentage of gross domestic product spent by this country on health has been totally inadequate: 5.8 per cent now from public funds, plus 1.1 per cent from private sources. Only 8 per cent of the costs of the NHS come from the National Insurance Fund because of the demands of social security.
I must say that I do not believe that the private sector is a threat to the NHS; it is a valuable partner and generates NHS funds by the use of private beds in hospital. I had hoped that new Labour would have discarded outworn, left-wing ideology and kept tax relief on private insurance, but that is another matter.
My profession has repeatedly been accused of scaremongering, of shroud waving and of making dire predictions about the terminal decline of the NHS, which have been subsequently unfulfilled. But I am convinced that grave concern is fully justified. Morale is at a critically low ebb. I become weary of saying, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made clear, that we have far too few doctors and nurses in this country in comparison with many of our overseas competitors.
General practice in this country has improved out of all recognition. Of course, we are all deeply disturbed and appalled by the recent frightful events in Hyde. If the General Medical Council had previously possessed the powers it now has I believe that that frightful situation may have been averted. But general practice has improved enormously in the UK. However, we have only half to two-thirds the number of GPs per unit of population compared with France and Germany. Doctors are stretched to such an extent that, as a rule, they are only able to allocate five to seven
250
minutes for a consultation. Is it surprising, therefore, that 40 per cent of the population have now turned to alternative and complementary medicine. Apart from the value and benefits derived from such measures, they are buying time in the consultation process.
Already there is a major decline in the number of young GP registrars entering the service. We are now seeing for the first time in the past two years a decline in the number of young people applying for entrance to medical school. Last week the BMA News Review published the results of a questionnaire exercise which showed that 62 per cent of those doctors consulted now believe that we no longer have the best health service in the world, but one of the worst in Europe. No fewer than 83 per cent felt that a comprehensive medical service free at the point of delivery, with present levels of funding or even with modest increases, would, in the future, be impossible.
The position in the hospitals is no better. In many respects it is worse. As we heard, beds have been closed; intensive care beds are not available when needed. Even in the small community in which I now live in Burford in the Cotswolds, to save funds the Burford Community Hospital—a major outlet from the acute wards of the John Radcliffe—has been closed and at the moment I am involved in a massive fundraising campaign to try at least to keep the day hospital open through private funding.
Those are some of the critical issues. There are not enough beds and not enough doctors; and 12,000 nurses leave the NHS every year. Indeed, there is a problem in relation to all hospital specialities. Report after report from the Royal Colleges demonstrated, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, that we have one-quarter to one-half the number of specialists in all specialties that many other developed countries have. I speak of cardiology and oncology. It is not surprising that our cancer survival rates are much lower than in many other countries. In my speciality of neurology, to quote one example, there are fewer than 300 neurologists in the UK compared with 400 in Finland, which has a population of only 4 million.
That is something which must be corrected. Many of those in the hospital service are grossly overloaded. In academic medicine the position is parlous. So many of those in lectureships, readerships and chairs in clinical specialities are being required to carry such a heavy clinical load that the time available for their major responsibilities of teaching and research is limited and seriously eroded. There are now 67 vacant clinical chairs in the UK for lack of suitable applicants and, sadly, there is a flood of early retirements by consultants in the NHS.
We are faced with an ageing population; massive technical advance; and, as others have said, the development of new and effective but expensive drugs. As the recent publication of the ABPI Hitting the Target has shown, the British pharmaceutical industry is making outstanding contributions. But there is also another massive spectre looming on the horizon. That is the genetic revolution. Gene therapy and prevention by the identification of genetic susceptibility is going to generate huge public expectation.

251
What can we do? The Government's pledge to give an additional 5 per cent year on year to the NHS is welcome but will not be enough. I find the idea of charges being imposed at the moment of sickness or need unattractive I have argued for years that the principle of hypothecated taxation, despite its disadvantages, by means of an income-related, index-linked health tax is one major issue that must be thought through. It is time to listen. Will this Government have the courage, unlike many previous administrations, to recognise that the situation is now critical? Although many of us here believe passionately in the future of the NHS, the time for an urgent and radical review of funding of the National Health Service must now be upon us.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I should like to record my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for the choice of this topic and for the manner in which she introduced it. We must learn that there are great political issues that can be pursued without recourse to adversarial politics. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is an indication of how one can address the portentous developments with political challenge, but none-the-less in a way which deserts the and field of Labour-Tory acrimony.
I want therefore as my modest contribution to consensus to suggest that we could well employ the resources of the Health Select Committee of another place to consider the problem that we are now discussing with a view to seeing to what extent a broader agreement can be canvassed than has been the experience of the past few weeks. I shall try to assist in that self-appointed task by suggesting four areas for consideration. I know that others will have much wider and indeed more profound matters for consideration.
First, I should like some idea of the likely future demands that will be placed upon national health. That goes beyond the health service, though it is central to the challenge. Of course, we are all well aware of the demographic factors that have dominated recent developments and which I believe will continue. We know that the developments in medical technology and in pharmacy have added to health costs. This afternoon we have added the spectre of gene therapy. All of that necessitates that we have some idea of the parameters of the challenge, the challenge in health terms, the challenge in financial terms and ultimately the challenge in political terms that attends us.
Secondly, I should like a little refinement of figures that have been thrown into the debate in the most careless fashion over the recent weeks, which is the costs of the health service in France and Germany. The sums that are impressed suggest that the most enormous increases are required for our own health provision. That may be so, but I should like a little more detail about this. I should like a little more argument and details and rather less in headlines. I should like to know whether compulsory private insurance is, in fact, a more ex pensive way of delivering healthcare than the system we have
252
operated in this country, because the answer to that question is crucial in determining some of the arithmetical challenges that await us.
Thirdly, I should like to say that I have an interest to declare. I am a trustee of the London Clinic. I must say that most of my thinking on health inevitably must be the health of the community in which I have been brought up. I wish to say that, without going into a great theological argument about these matters, I do feel that the provisions for healthcare are limited by the relatively modest contribution that is made to it by the private health sector. I believe that that could be reasonably expanded without undermining the basic ethos of the National Health Service. The point was made forcefully by my honourable friend, Lord Howe, and I was delighted to see that it was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We simply cannot afford to neglect something from the private sector which may be contributive to overall national health any more than—and nobody today has suggested it so far—we should scrap prescription charges because, certainly in the very early days, they are thought to be antipathetic to the philosophy of the health service.
I now go to my fourth point. However one considers these matters—and to some extent I am anticipating what may be the judgment of the departmental Select Committee—I believe that we are going to have to spend more on the health service, financed out of taxation. Therefore, we have the prospect of increased spending and increased taxation. I say that because, quite frankly, I think there is an anxiety to avoid that central question, to believe that somehow administration or some other technique will excuse one from this disagreeable choice. It is the more disagreeable because it is going to have to be our choice, a choice of a British Parliament answering to a British public. It cannot be willed off to anyone else. In my view, it stands central and ahead of any other consideration one might have about convergence and all the other modish terms which are now prayed in aid, because taxation is at the very heart of political judgment and that judgment itself reflects what kind of people we think we are and for which we will make collective decisions and collective sacrifices.
I have, more or less, said what I wished to say. I should like the prospective Select Committee to be encouraged in the whole philosophy of trying to disavow that there is something for nothing in this world. I regret to say that the area of welfare has often been disfigured by the arguments of "something for nothing". Take the example of National Insurance— and I say this with deference to the Liberal Benches. In 1911, Lloyd George devised the term "nine pence for four pence". This referred to the fiddling around with the contributions of the government and the employers. The riposte of the public to this was "nine pence for nothing". That is the course of unreal economics in these matters.
I quote from a another—preferred—Welshman, Aneurin Bevan. He said that the language of priorities is the religion of socialism. That remark is provocative in the presence of New Labour. But I will say that the

253
judgment of priority and the difficulties of priority lie at the heart of trying to redesign the factors I have mentioned. I wish this Government and any other government warm support across the floor of this Chamber in trying to devise something that will be measurably better than we have now.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, who has, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, set a standard in discussing this issue in a non-partisan manner because we are all interested in seeing a better National Health Service.
I was briefly involved, for no more than 40 winks, when I used to stand opposite the noble Baroness when I was a shadow Minister for Health. Luckily for both of us, it did not last very long. I remember the noble Baroness's commitment to the National Health Service, which she has shown again today.
I think that we ought to have an all-party pact with regard to the National Health Service because the numbers being bandied about are very confusing. Every government claim that they increase funding to the National Health Service by so much, but of course the proportion of GDP spent on it has not budged for a very long time. Is a proportion of GDP a good measure? Our criticism of state-owned enterprises was normally that they had excess capacity and overmanning. The National Health Service is the exact opposite. It has no excess capacity. It is short of staff. From one point of view, we ought to separate out certain shortages and certain improvements, but we ought also to consider the fact that, overall, no other country has as efficient a health service. That is worth saying. Of course, a lot of people are working very hard in it.
Perhaps I may say this about health outcomes: there are headlines about cancer and about coronary matters, but what about the other outcomes measures, such as life expectancy? I do not think they are going to show that badly in comparison. We need better outcomes measures and better measures of quality of healthcare, and not just those relating to certain headline causes of mortality. Let us not measure only inputs. Let us also find out how the inputs are deployed. Let us have better measures of output because we do not have them now.
I have lived here for the past 35 years and I have never seen a headline saying, "NHS in good health; nurses happy; doctors say NHS will flourish". I have only seen headlines such as, "Nurses' morale has never been lower". This goes on. I should love to see the graph of nurses' morale to see how it goes down all the time. We properly love the NHS, but our crisis-mongering is the only way we can love it. We cannot love it happily. We can only love it with conflict.
There are two important points to emphasise. One which has not yet been discussed is that while we affirm the principle of healthcare being free at the point of use—and I want to re-affirm that—we think only of
254
the financial cost and not of the real cost to patients. We have allocated healthcare by time, by queuing, and by inconvenience. People often do not go to their general practitioner because it is too time consuming. This is what happens when people talk about "postcode treatment". We have also rationed healthcare by non-visible measures of cost, non-financial measures of cost. That is why certain sorts of social difference persist.
We need to move away from money sums and input numbers. We need to ask about access to quality health services and what price people are paying—and, indeed, in what terms they are paying the price—when they have free access to healthcare. If we are to improve our service while keeping it free at the point of use, we shall have to consider such questions.
Another major question is also one which has not yet been discussed; namely, the rationing of healthcare. We cannot be in denial about this. Of course healthcare is rationed, but it is rationed by the producers of healthcare, not by governments. Historically in every country, we have—quite rightly—allowed the medical profession to ration healthcare. Therefore, there are gatekeepers who will decide who gets what. For various reasons, the time has now come for this producer-domination of a major service to be questioned. Consumers want not only more information; they also want more say. So we ought to have a debate, like the debate in the state of Oregon, about what problems people think require priority treatment. For example, how would people prioritise hip operations versus some other problems? There are also acute and elective problems, but we should let people say, "We think that these treatments are top priority which should be supplied at all times, anywhere".
There are other areas where waiting is not a problem: or at certain times it is a problem but, at others, it is not. We should not say that the NHS should be free at the point of use and completely non-rationed, and then be surprised when we have problems. As I said, we ought to have a major debate on rationing. We must admit that there is rationing now. Such an admission is not in any sense a criticism of the National Health Service. Indeed, very few things that are provided free of charge in financial terms are free from rationing. It is just not possible.
Finally, I turn to a somewhat contentious problem. It has classically been known in economics that medical care is a very peculiar product because consumers do not know what they want: the producer tells them what they need. Therefore, we always approach the problem of healthcare in a state of ignorance. Due to that problem there is no consumer sovereignty. But, at the same time, the self-regulation of producers will be questioned, which will not be very popular with doctors. However, if the events of recent days have shown one thing it is the fact that self-regulation does not work in medicine, as was the case with financial markets. That is another reason for us to have a proper debate. Such debates will improve the National Health Service. In the mean time, we can continue to discuss the question of numbers.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in an admirable introduction, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the start of the National Health Service in 1948. That start immediately exposed a fundamental miscalculation. Nye Bevan and his officials comprehensively under-estimated what it was going to cost. They actually expected that the cost of the service would grow less as the population became healthier. They failed to foresee that, far from declining, the demand for treatment, once freed from financial constraint, would prove literally infinite and the capacity of the medical profession and drug companies to devise expensive new treatments scarcely less. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, indicated, since then the problem of infinite and uncontrolled demand has dogged every government. In his account of the conduct of policy under Harold Wilson and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, described how,
"the problems of the NHS ranged from the acute to the merely chronic".
Despite all these financial difficulties, under both Labour and Conservative administrations the services of the NHS have been expanded to a remarkable degree. Despite constant Labour propaganda that Conservative governments neglect the service, a great many of the most substantial advances have taken place while my party has been in power. If I take the period from 1979 to 1987 as an example, it is simply because I have the record of my own time in government ready to hand. Over that period expenditure on the health service grew by nearly one-third in real terms, we employed more doctors, nurses and professional staff than ever before and the NHS treated close to a quarter more patients in hospitals. We undertook the largest hospital building programme ever; and there were other important initiatives to improve the services. Early in this debate my noble friend Lord Howe gave the figures which show that those improvements continued over the next decade.
These were huge advances and yet large problems remained. They were brought home to me vividly during the frequent visits that I was paying at that time to King's College Hospital in London for treatment. Like many others, I was left several times on a trolley in a passage—yes, it even happened to Cabinet Ministers at that time—and was able to observe many things that were badly wrong with the service. A few years later, while visiting my dying mother-in-law in a mixed ward, which she hated, in Cheltenham, it was all too apparent that this was not the way to treat those who are seriously ill.
Despite the firm commitment of successive Conservative governments and our very substantial achievements, the Labour Party has succeeded in creating the myth that Conservatives are hostile to the health service, and has so sanctified the service that its worship has become almost a religion. A situation has been created where criticism is regarded as sacrilege. That is the principal reason why Conservative administrations have concentrated their efforts on
256
administrative reorganisation rather than on a fundamental re-examination of the financial structure; and why such an enormous obligation now falls on the present Government. The need for reform is now clear to everyone. There is a heavy duty on new Labour to face that obligation—not with meaningless promises, but by an open examination of radical options in which the other political parties must be prepared to participate constructively.
In his memoirs Norman Fowler described how he argued the case against moving over to private health insurance and concluded that there was little to he gained from a substantial change in the financing arrangements; but he advanced the argument against the background of a "think tank" paper produced without public or ministerial consultation. He makes it clear that it was concern about "a probable political whirlwind" that was a dominant factor in Ministers' minds as they considered the issue.
My noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby in his memoirs also advanced the case against private insurance as a primary method of NHS finance. But he acknowledges that with a system of taxpayer finance,
"when finite resources, however substantial, are faced with infinite demand, there will always be frustrated demand",
and painful consequences. Unwilling to risk the political fallout and dubious that there was an obvious solution to be discovered in the arrangements of other nations, Conservative governments have settled on attempts to reduce costs and improve efficiency by means of internal reorganisations. Important though these have been, they could not be solutions to the fundamental problem. Effective reform of health or social security systems requires open review and widespread consultation; but that was just not possible in the circumstances.
Having promised to think the unthinkable, after its election triumph New Labour was uniquely in a position to do so, but the Prime Minister funked it. It is characteristic of the Prime Minister's approach that, in opposition, he should flagrantly misrepresent the attitude of Conservatives to the health service, ruthlessly exploit the public's concern and shamelessly offer a promise swiftly to put things right, without having the smallest idea how to deliver that promise. It is equally characteristic that, a thousand or so days later when faced by the fact that things had got much worse, he should again come forward with a promise described by Anatole Kaletsky, in a cogently argued article in The Times on 20th January, as "arithmetically nonsensical"; and almost immediately half withdraw that promise. If Mr Kaletsky is even half right in his argument, it looks as if Britain will suffer from an inadequate health service for a long time to come.
In the situation that we now face, I am not convinced by the arguments accepted by colleagues in the 1980s that we should be content with internal reorganisation, and that there are few lessons to be learned from the experience of other countries Is it not at least possible that a competitive market in the sources of finance and in the provision of services might produce real improvements?

257
As Frank Field was asked to think the unthinkable, before being sacked for doing so, should we not start by debating his proposal to rebuild health expenditure around a national insurance base that would permit a new dialogue with the electorate about how much should be committed to health expenditure? Should we not relook at the possibility of more private spending on drugs, on routine visits to doctors, on accommodation, and on optional procedures? Should we not consider supplementing basic health provision with a number of approved and perhaps compulsory insurance schemes which would provide people with a choice of their level of contributory expenditure and the type and scale of service that they would then receive?
Is it not possible that people in France are getting a better service because the share of cost taken by private insurance is greater? Is there not room for much greater contracting out of services to improve efficiency and cost competitiveness? The National Health Service is lagging far behind private business and local government in contracting out services. Right back in the early 80s my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and I achieved dramatic improvements in the efficiency of the renal dialysis service in Wales by contracting out the service delivered inside a number of National Health hospitals in Wales.
The time has come to accept that what we have is not sacred, perfect or even the best; and that this is the moment for an open and radical review of the options. If the Government tackle the problem in that way, they are entitled to expect a full and constructive contribution from the Opposition. I only wish that I had more confidence that the Prime Minister had the understanding and courage to follow that course.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating this extremely important debate.
Just over a year ago, I made my first major speech in this House on the Second Reading of last year's Health Bill, as it then was. In that speech I drew your Lordships' attention to the conundrum facing the health authority in the part of the world I come from: namely, Guildford in west Surrey. As I put it then, in terms of population we are one of the healthiest and wealthiest health authorities in the United Kingdom. Because we are healthy and wealthy our needs are judged by the NHS, quite rightly, to be low. But, because we are wealthy, our expectations and aspirations as to the level and quality of service that we should receive are high.
There is, therefore, an unbridgeable gap between the resources supplied and the resources demanded—a gap which currently measures some £10 million on a budget of some £370 million, and has been as high as £20 million, leaving a millstone of debt to be repaid as well as finding economies needed to close that gap. Every service has, of course, seen its share of the cuts:
258
the community and mental health services, the ambulance service, the acute services and district nurses. Now, in spite of a clear lack of capacity in the three accident and emergency departments that serve the area, it is rumoured that one will be closed down. The Government are unyielding. The massed ranks of Surrey's Conservative Members of Parliament orchestrated an Adjournment debate two weeks ago in the other place. They pleaded with the Minister to forgo the repayment of the £18 million debt that is hanging round our necks. The Minister firmly told the assembled Members that the £18 million has to be repaid because this Government are interested in a sustainable and long-term investment.
As a Liberal Democrat the cynical thought crosses my mind that, of course, the Government have no seats to lose in Surrey. What does it matter? Why worry? I worry because it seems so crazy. We have a modern, new district hospital and wards that are kept closed, yet we are short of beds. We have a refurbished accident and emergency department, on which £2.5 million has just been spent, which provides a 13-bed observation ward. Therefore, although last Monday one 71 year-old had been waiting for 40 hours for a bed, at least he was not waiting on a trolley in a corridor. However, it now appears as if we do not have enough money to keep that observation ward open. Staffing is a constant problem. Seven of the nurses in the accident and emergency department have resigned; and it is not just a question of pay. They resign due to the constant pressure of work and the need to put in extra shifts to keep the department open, knowing that they cannot, in the accident and emergency department, provide the nursing care that is required. Resignation is the most potent form of protest that they can make.
Therefore, the hospital will have to hire more agency nurses, placing a greater load of responsibility on the remaining staff nurses. That will add further to the budget problems. But why should the agency nurses, who are paid far more than the ordinary staff nurses and can pick and choose their hours, avoid all these heavy responsibilities? It is no wonder that NHS-trained nurses leave the NHS for agencies. I believe that today there are 2,500 fewer nurses working for the NHS than there were in May 1997 when the Government came to power. In Guildford we have just had our vacancy rate cut from 15 to 10 per cent. Why is that? It is because we have recruited a team of nurses from the Philippines.
Of course we need to spend more on the National Health Service. Many noble Lords have mentioned the amounts that are spent. Our expenditure per capita on health in this country is half that of Germany or France, and lower even than that of Spain. If we consider the matter in terms of absolute amounts spent per capita, we join Greece and Portugal at the bottom of the league table in Europe. Yet we pride ourselves— listen to what the Prime Minister said at Davos—on the strength and vibrant growth of our economy. In these circumstances, it is crazy for the Government to cut taxes ahead of providing more resources for the

259
National Health Service, as we Liberal Democrats have said time and time again. Every opinion poll says the same thing. People are willing to pay more tax, provided they know that it is going to the National Health Service. But somehow we have to ring-fence that money.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, spoke of having a tax that was hypothecated towards the National Health Service. Others have mentioned national insurance. I should like to see us impose a 2 per cent surcharge on national insurance, and to ring-fence that for the National Health Service. That would make a reality of many people's illusion that part of their national insurance payment goes to health.
However, money is not everything. Many noble Lords may have read the article in the Economist a couple of weeks ago which pointed out that Britain has fewer doctors per thousand of the population than any of the other G7 countries. Italy, which spends only a little more per capita than the UK, has three times as many doctors as the UK per thousand of the population. Germany and France have twice as many doctors per thousand of the population as the UK. This is not accounted for in terms of the difference in the proportion of GNP spent on health. France and Germany have twice as many nurses as the UK. Yet these are high income countries where salaries cost a great deal.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned our efficiency in this area. We are incredibly efficient if one considers the number of operations performed; the number of patients seen by doctors in surgeries: and the number of day operations performed. We are top of all the league tables in those respects. However, are we in danger of confusing quantity with quality? Why am I, a British woman in my early 60s, more likely to die if I have a heart attack here in Britain than if I have one in France? Why are our survival rates from cancer so poor? Why is my husband, who has a totally untroubling and slight hernia, being taken into day surgery next week when there are urgent cancer operations which have had to be postponed for week after week after week?
I believe that we have become transfixed by quantitative indicators and that we have lost sight of the qualitative. It is cheaper in the long run to pay nurses decent salaries, to train them and to keep them in teams in our hospitals than to continue down the present route of outsourcing nursing services. It is cheaper to recruit more doctors than to lose so many to the present very high levels of stress and early retirement. If we could measure the quality of life, we should see that it is infinitely cheaper to provide a new hip quickly now than to allow people to suffer the pain, the inconvenience and the costs of waiting two or three years for an operation.
We need to rethink where the health service is going. The Government's record is not brilliant. I believe that they inherited a very flawed system, which has been made unnecessarily difficult by their acceptance of the budget set by the Conservatives. I applaud some of the
260
initiatives that have been taken—NHS Direct, for example—but the Government have failed to do with the health service what they failed to do in education: to rethink the ethos of the public service.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in suggesting that we need to look forward and that we should explore different initiatives.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that this is a timed debate and that she has exceeded her time.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am finishing. We need to explore different initiatives and we need to go forward from here.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, in listening to the debate, I find myself in an extraordinary position. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for initiating it because not only has she given us an opportunity to discuss this matter at a topical time— she delivered a splendid speech, if I may say so, summarising the position and drawing on her considerable experience—but I believe she may have given the Minister and the Government a window of opportunity. Listening to the debate and the speeches, it is quite clear that the view, certainly in this House, as in the country, is that the game is up. The days of pretending that it is possible to have the kind of health service that our people are entitled to and, at the same time, pledging no tax increases, are at an end unless other sources of funding to meet the needs of the health service are being suggested.
The Government, through the discussions which take place in the Budget, are effectively setting a ceiling on the quality and quantity of healthcare that people may have in this country, and are also preventing alternative providers from providing competition to the health service and thereby improving quality. At the end of the debate the Minister should say that two things have changed. He should say, "We are going to stop claiming that we can have the health service that we all believe that we need and to which our people are entitled without finding additional resources"; and he should say also, "We shall stop going around saying that we have the best health service in the world'.
If we are talking about the people in the health service—the doctors, the nurses and all the others—I am prepared to accept that we may very well have the best health service in the world. But if we are talking about the resources and the range of treatments available to patients, it is no longer the case. A number of suggestions have been made in the debate for additional sources of revenue.
Can we please end this partisan, political point scoring of whose statistics on the health service 'were better; who spent more money; who did what. The truth is that we all tried to do what we could for the health service—we have all seen the budget increasing—but we have all shied away from ideas such as hypothecation and insurance. If the Tories

261
stand up and say, "Insurance", the Labour Party stands up and says, "Private insurance is privatisation. They want to destroy the health service", whereas the truth is that you can have mutually funded insurance schemes and privately funded health insurance schemes. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated, such schemes need to be looked at.
I have been surprised by some of the figures I have seen in articles in the press—mainly driven by the excellent work carried out by Dr. David Green of the Institute of Economic Affairs—on comparisons with other countries in Europe. For example, he has estimated that if we were to match the percentage of the GDP spent on health by Germany, we would have to spend an extra £30 billion. That would mean— assuming no reduction in yield—an increase in the basic rate of tax of nearly 12 pence. Not even the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, can deliver that kind of additional resource without contemplating that kind of increase in tax.
My noble friend Lord Biffen said that it may not be necessary to increase spending by that amount, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, we need to look at the outcomes in these countries and compare them with the outcomes in this country to see the extent to which our people are being cheated. A British person is twice as likely to die from heart disease as his neighbours across the Channel. That is not all down to diet. Lung cancer patients in Germany have twice the five-year survival rate as patients in Britain. Women with ovarian cancer have a 30 per cent chance of surviving for five years in the United Kingdom; in Sweden it is 45 per cent. Other countries in Europe, such as France and Germany—and some of them have pretty socialist governments—do not find it necessary to have the state running the hospitals, employing all the nurses, employing all the doctors and funding all their healthcare out of taxes. Is it just possible that we might be out of step with the others and that we might learn from their experience?
The Government will claim that they are spending more—as indeed they are—but they are also introducing rationing. For the first time the drugs budget in the NHS is cash limited. I have a brief from Central Office but I am not going to read out any of the examples. We all read the newspapers; we know that people are not getting the cancer drugs they need; we know that there is postcode rationing. I do the Minister the courtesy of acknowledging that he would not wish it to be the case, but it is the case that we have rationing and it is the case that the Government's organisation—paradoxically called NICE—has a brief to take that forward on an institutionalised basis.
One of the things that I miss about being in this House rather than in the other place is the constituency post. I made some enquiries about the constituency post of someone I trust implicitly—my wife. She has been a House of Commons secretary for 20 years; 14 years with me. She tells me that she has never seen a constituency post on the health service such as is coming in now: tales of people on trolleys; tales of people in difficulty. I know that every January is the
262
same: there is always a crisis in the health service. It was the same under the previous government; it is the same under this Government. The reason for the crisis is that we are not able to staff for the peaks of demand. Whatever speeches are made, whatever inquiries are made, whatever initiatives are taken by the Government, I can guarantee that next January there will be another crisis in the health service. There is a crisis of manpower and funding which needs to be urgently addressed.
Insurance schemes could add resources. The withdrawal of the tax relief on private insurance has resulted in a quarter of a million people cancelling their policies. That is a quarter of a million people—whose medical care will have to be funded out of an overstretched budget—who would otherwise have added to the resources of the health service as a whole. There is a philosophical question here. Surely as people get wealthier they should be asked to make more of a contribution towards their health care. They certainly should not be prevented from doing so, which appears to be the prevalent view in certain quarters.
We do not have to have a service which depends on staff being overstretched and overworked. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we rely on doctors who work 60 and 70 hours a week to carry out their tasks.
Finally, I do not know how he does it, but the Prime Minister seems to lead a charmed life. He is standing high in the opinion polls; he is respected in the country; and he was elected on a platform to do something about the health service. He is uniquely placed now to take action on the funding of the service, to set up a Commission to look at the funding and to try to proceed on an all-party basis. His administration will then be remembered as one that did something of real worth for our country.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating the debate, to which I contribute with great humility.
I cannot match the knowledge and expertise manifest in some of the speeches that have preceded mine, and which will no doubt be further manifest in those that come after. I have never worked in or around the National Health Service and I am glad to say that, so far, my family and I have had need to use it relatively sparingly. None the less, I regard it as one of the UK's—and, I venture to say, the Labour Party's—finest 20th century achievements.
In referring to the NHS specifically as a 20th century achievement, I should like to draw attention not to the difficulties and disappointments of the present—on which some noble Lords have understandably wished to dwell—but to the challenges of the future; and, in particular, how we can learn to understand and make better use of the health services that will be available to us as the century goes forward.
As medical science and technology have advanced, which—as other noble Lords have pointed out—they have done at a startling rate over the past 30 years, the

263
expectation has grown that medicine can and should put right all the ills to which flesh is heir. As others have said, it is that level of expectation as much as any other factor which is putting the National Health Service under such intense strain. If such expectation grows unmediated by informed public debate, it will never be satisfied, no matter how much money is flung into its open mouth.
It is reasonable to expect that our taxes will be used wisely to provide a comprehensive and inclusive health service. There has never been any question about the Government's support for that principle, which perhaps could not always have been said of the previous administration. The Government have done a great deal in their short life to improve the quality and reach of the NHS, adding both significant new money and important new initiatives, such as the introduction of NHS Direct and NICE. But in respect of health services, we are extremely disinclined to accept that we cannot have everything, that choices have to be made and that systems have to change. It seems to me unlikely that we shall ever arrive in Utopia, where enough is not only available but seen and understood to be so by everyone. We shall always face great questions about the allocation of resources. Making the best use of resources, both human and financial, will require in future a commitment from each and all of us to understand what we can and, equally importantly, what we cannot expect a health service to deliver.
In recent years we have learned to identify ourselves primarily as "customers" or "consumers". All organisations supplying products and services have had to adjust to the idea that the customer rules. Of course that is not in itself a bad thing; indeed, in many respects, it is a good thing. We should expect that those who provide us with milk, gas, insurance, or, indeed, theatre, will do so in a way that suits us. If they do not, we can take our custom elsewhere the next time we want something similar. But we have come to apply the customer test to everything and I wonder whether seeing ourselves as consumers" of healthcare is, as it were, healthy.
Of course, the old-fashioned paternalistic model of the doctor/patient relationship will no longer do. We have seen in recent days, unfortunately, a dreadful example of what may happen when it is too heavily relied upon. But that relationship between ourselves as patients and our doctors as service providers, whether they be general practitioners or the hospital services to which we turn, is not like the one we have with the gas company with which we contract for a safe supply of gas at an agreed price. It is, or should be, much more in the nature of a partnership—and indeed, that is how it is now often described. The point about a partnership is, of course, that both parties have expertise to offer and responsibilities to discharge.
I fear that if we cannot learn to see ourselves as active participants in decisions about our own health, rather than merely as consumers of a service, we shall never become sophisticated enough as a society to deal with the complex, and often contradictory, challenges
264
with which advances in medical science, demographic change and constrained resources will increasingly present us.
The way that the NHS and health issues in general are discussed in the press and other media has not always helped us to think constructively about the difficult questions we face. The relentless concentration on crisis and on individual cases, whether, as it were, "tragic" or "miraculous", distorts our perceptions, creating heroes, fuelling witchhunts and appealing to sentiment rather than reason.
One most revealing recent example concerns the case of Jaymee Bowen, otherwise known as "Child B", who, noble Lords may remember, died aged 11 of leukaemia in May 1996 following a highly-publicised confrontation between her father and the Cambridge Health Authority over whether she should receive further treatment. A team of researchers al the University of York analysed the media coverage generated by the case. How confused and reductive public debate on that issue may become is illustrated by what they show. That is not to say that the matter was not treated seriously by the media, which it certainly was; nor that all commentary was simplistic, which it certainly was not. The question is whether we, the public, were equipped to make sense of the information available.
I should like to highlight a few of the conclusions reached by the research team, which seem to have general application:
"Media coverage of the Child B case might be seen as an indicator of a widespread expectation that modern medicine can cure every ill and provide a solution to every problem.
It is not clear to what extent media coverage of this case would have helped people understand the limited nature of available research evidence about the effectiveness of health care interventions or about the inherent uncertainty attached to medical decision making.
Our study suggests that while the media may raise awareness of the issues which need debating, and may influence people's perceptions of these issues, they do not provide a solid base of information which would allow people to participate in debates in a particularly informed way, and their coverage itself does not constitute a full public debate".
It is not my intention to lay all the blame for the inadequacy of public understanding entirely at the door of the media. That would be easy, but hypocritical. If we are to do better in future, it will not be through pointing the finger in that way, or indeed, in any other way. It has been helpful that a number of noble Lords have referred to the NHS as an issue which needs to be dealt with in a non-partisan, nonparty-political way. However, if we are to raise the standard of debate, we must do so by devoting more time and energy within our education system to addressing some of the painful choices which will face us both as individuals and as a community. The reality is that living in a grown-up democracy means living with complexity and contradiction, and, as T S Eliot famously remarked,
"Human kind cannot take very much reality".
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if, at this late moment, I briefly introduce a subject dear to my heart: the use of the arts in education. One of the best

265
ways of helping young people to get to grips with difficult issues and to recognise the personal responsibility involved in good citizenship is by using the arts as a medium for discussion. On a previous occasion I have drawn the House's attention to several examples of how that can work, particularly in the area of health, and I know that the Government are interested in, and supportive of, some of the initiatives already under way.
The Government have not shirked the challenges that sustaining a comprehensive National Health Service presents. However, we cannot leave it to Government alone to face those challenges. The future health of the National Health Service lies in our collective ability to value it, support it and understand it in an informed, mature way. I do not expect that that can be achieved overnight, but I hope that we can by slow degrees reduce the danger that public perception of difficult issues will for ever be dominated by political opportunism and journalistic hype.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing this important debate on the state of the NHS. There is no doubt that in this country we have much to be proud of within the NHS. The recent millennium preparations demonstrated how good interagency planning can deliver a service to meet the needs of patients. I hope that the excellent work undertaken will not be put aside, but developed still further. However, the millennium period was followed, as we have already heard, by extreme pressure on the services due to the outbreak of influenza and its complications. Those pressures, which were referred to as "winter pressures", cannot be ignored.
Research evidence shows that an efficient hospital runs at 85 to 86 per cent occupancy. My experience is that the hospitals in the trust which I currently chair are running at 96 to 98 per cent—sometimes 99 per cent—occupancy, and not just confined to winter pressures. I understand that that experience is shared by many other trusts, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, earlier in the debate. That cannot be an efficient way of running the health service.
There is no doubt that the health inflation rate is not met by the national inflation rate. It is perhaps best described as an irresistible force of healthcare demand and the requirement for quality service meeting the immovable object of inadequate resources—for example, in bed capacity, especially in intensive care units; shortage of manpower and money; and with ever increasing numbers of elderly people in the population requiring more healthcare. Research shows that elderly people—those over the age of 85—need four times as much healthcare as those aged 65 to 75. The Government have allocated 6.7 per cent more cash. However, once the unfunded pay awards and the European working time directive, which will take up 2.5 per cent. the NHS superannuation pension scheme, 1 per cent. prescribing cost increases, 2 per cent. and inflation increases, 2.5 per cent. have been deducted
266
then, when allowing for a planned 3 per cent efficiency gain, there is little resource available for health authorities to allocate to primary care groups and NHS trusts, where there are competing priorities—for example, in replacing out of date equipment essential for modern diagnostic and treatment procedures, investment to meet the target of single sex wards, to say nothing of the manpower requirements in all healthcare professions and the exciting new models in primary healthcare teams and community developments.
The NHS is one of the largest and most complex organisations in the United Kingdom. The Government's policy to modernise the NHS is welcomed by, I would say, almost all health professionals. But change cannot happen overnight. There is a need for time, for change management expertise and for resources to effect the changes. Currently, employees—be they managers, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, to name but a few—are all engaged in the day-to-day delivery of care, desperately trying to maintain high quality care and to meet government imperatives on waiting times. The reconfiguration of services requires clinicians to spend time discussing, planning and programming changes to their services. Yet they are expected to continue with their clinical programmes. To attain the modernisation programme, a realisable target timetable must be set and there must be the manpower resource to plan and implement it, which requires additional resources. Can the Minister indicate the Government's intention with regard to resources being made available for planning and implementing the modernisation programme?
Within the past 10 years, the nursing profession has been transformed into a more confident forward-looking profession with enormous potential to prevent disease, provide high quality care for the sick and promote healthier lifestyles. One example of the way in which a more cost-effective and more efficient service could be established is to expand the various models of high quality, cost-effective healthcare through nurse-led services, NHS Direct, assessment and pain control clinics, screening clinics, specialist roles in endoscopy, colonoscopy, nurse practitioners, Hospital at Home services and a range of community services within the primary healthcare team and expansion of the nurse prescribing programme. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the development of these nurse-led models which result in high quality cost-effective healthcare will be supported by the Government? For example, one of the UK studies demonstrated that nurse practitioners were more cost-effective in all areas of care, with 84 per cent of patients reporting a high degree of satisfaction. Hourly rates for a nurse practitioner are £11 to £15 compared with £25 for a general practitioner.
The promotion of the integration of clinical services and information for health within the framework of clinical governance is an integral part of delivering a high quality health service. We need reassurance that there will be a continued drive by the Government to implement that.

267
The NHS is very important to the people of the UK. The healthcare professionals a re dedicated to providing a high quality service. That dedication needs to be fostered before good will runs out. There is a limit to how much more pressure the current workforce can take. As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, earlier in the debate, nurses are resigning. I urge the Minister to bear this in mind as the Government unfold the much needed modernisation programme, which needs to be more radical. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested, this debate presents a window of opportunity.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, noble Lords may have some apprehension at the prospect of being addressed by a GP such as myself, with a grey beard and a grey moustache, but I can reassure the House that I have no malevolent intentions. As the Shipman case is still headline news, perhaps I may welcome the Secretary of State's prompt and wise choice of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to head the inquiry into the case. I am sure that most doctors will agree that the General Medical Council should tighten its follow-up procedures for those doctors who have been disciplined, as was Dr Shipman in 1977. Single-handed practitioners need particular support and appraisal.
The paradox of Dr Shipman is that he seems to have been a good Dr Jekyll when he was not being a Mr Hyde—apparently, a caring, concerned man in whom many put their trust; in fact, the very kind of doctor who was typical of a past era that is mourned by many. The current stereotype of a general practitioner or a hospital doctor is one who is in a hurry, under stress and has a reductionist or technical approach. As my noble friend Lord Walton said, that may play a part in the current popularity of complementary and alternative medicine.
I intend to raise three points and spend perhaps one and a half or two minutes on each. My first point concerns NHS Direct. It is a popular service and is now to be expanded. What evaluation of the service has or is being done? When can we expect to see a report? I was always sorry that the scheme was not integrated more closely with primary care groups—in particular, GP off-duty rotas or co-operative schemes—or that it did not involve practice nurses. Perhaps more practice nurses could have been added to practices for that purpose. They would be able to liaise more directly with GPs when that was necessary, as it so often is. It is not too late to do that. Continuity of care would be much better if there were closer local links between the nurses who give advice through NHS Direct and local primary care groups or practices. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to give a progress report.
I turn to the present bed crisis—always with us at this time of the year but particularly acute this time round. I am concerned that the PFI-built hospitals now coming on stream will exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. In nearly every case fewer beds are
268
provided in the newly built PFI hospitals than in those they replace. For instance, according to a BMA report in May last year, at Dartford hospital,
"The loss of 75 beds compared with the existing provision in the three hospitals will require a further shift to more out-patient and day case treatment".
"Yet hospital consultants already work on average more than 51 hours a week, and 1 in 6 junior doctors is working in excess of 56 hours each week. The BMA regards a rise in work intensity of this nature as unsustainable"—
let alone the burden on nurses, which is equally great.
Regarding the new PFI-built Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh, in which bed numbers will fall by no less than 21 per cent.
"The British Medical Association has warned for several years that the hospital would prove to be too small given the need to provide a profit margin to the PFI consortium".
The PFI has been very useful in giving a boost to the hospital building programme, but it seems that short-term gain is being obtained at long-term cost—not only in numbers of beds and pressure on staff, but also by passing higher than necessary interest rates on to future taxpayers, whose governments will have to find the money from their current National Health Service expenditure, causing costs to escalate further. The British Medical Journal uses the phrase, "perfidious financial idiocy", in describing the PFI. I hope that we shall have time later in this parliamentary Session to discuss the whole issue of the PFI and how it is developing.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his avowed goal of reaching the average European Union percentage of GDP spent on health. We must beware, however, that it is a moving target. As we still spend a lower proportion of our health budget on administration than other EU countries, we should do quite well if we can reach that average, providing we continue to fund the NHS, as we do now, from general taxation, as well as possibly from national insurance contributions with the upper ceiling removed. That might have the same effect as the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I am also attracted to the hypothecated tax suggested by my noble friend Lord Walton.
My main fear is that increased funding for the National Health Service will result in a reduction in resources for the other departments whose responsibilities have an equal or greater effect on the health of the population than the National Health Service. The major public health problem in the United Kingdom—and for that matter most of the rest of the world—is the inequality in the health of the poorest and that of the better-off. Poverty, poor education, poor housing and inequity of income lie at the root of this, as has been shown in study after study.
In his introduction to a new book, The widening gap, published by a team from Bristol University, Professor Peter Townsend states:
"If the Conservative government had not reduced social security benefits, it can be estimated that the poorest 20% of the population would today have about £5bn. or 20%, more in aggregate disposable income, that the ratio between the richest

269
and poorest 20% would be reduced from about 9:1 … to 5:1, and that poverty by European standards would have been reduced by more than a third".
A greater long-term gain in the health of the nation would be achieved by eliminating poverty and reducing income inequity than any amount of expenditure on the National Health Service. An improved National Health Service is politically and socially necessary. But the Government should not deviate from their main self-appointed task; namely, to work towards a fairer society. That would also be a happier and healthier society.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I am, in common with other noble Lords, most grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for introducing this important debate.
As always, my noble friend has spoken with customary grace and good sense. In a weak reflection of those excellent opening words I, too, urge the Minister to ask whether the time has not come for the health service to be taken out of the day by day political ping-pong and point scoring of modern politics. Is it beyond the resolve of all the political parties to find common ground on certain aspects of, for example, the NHS delivery system? There seems to me to be something fundamentally unacceptable about political point scoring when dealing with the health and lives of the people of Britain; the health and lives of the very people we in these Houses of Parliament are here to serve.
When I was a member of the NHS Policy Board between 1991 and 1995 there was much debate, often encouraged by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, about the possibilities of establishing an independent board to run the NHS, staffed by executives and non-executives from the private sector, thus distancing these day by day issues from the politics of the day.
However that is done, the need is urgent: put the NHS above party politics, agree common ground across the main parties and establish long-term strategies to invest in and develop the NHS which will not be altered on political whim or simply when there is a change of government.
The opportunity is dramatic. The scale is enormous: a million people working in the NHS; 800,000 people treated every week in hospital out-patients departments; 700,000 going to a dentist; 8.5 million prescriptions; 10,000 babies delivered; £47 billion of public money a year.
Consistent with fulfilling the constraints of the proper stewardship of public funds, as other noble Lords have said, we must find a way of rebuilding public confidence in the NHS. In the White Paper, The New NHS: modern, dependable, prepared in December 1997, the Government propose,
"to rebuild public confidence in the NHS as a public service, accountable to patients, open to the public and shaped by their views".
270
In a similar debate a year ago, I urged the Government to trumpet the everyday triumphs of the NHS. I have just listed the vast weekly output of the NHS. Much is wrong, but the overwhelming majority of its activities are not subjects of complaint or dissatisfaction. To the contrary, many of those who use the NHS praise its quality and praise those employed within it. Those achievements go largely unheralded.
I spoke previously of the importance of building a reservoir of goodwill upon which to draw when things go wrong. The goodwill towards the NHS is too often lost by one single picture in one single tabloid suggesting that the norm is a bed in a corridor or the inability to afford certain drugs or treatments. We should not rest until those inequalities are removed, but they are still the exception and not the rule.
But the good news of the NHS—so essential to the confidence of patients and to the morale of all those who work with such selfless determination within it—has not been promoted. In fact, the situation has deteriorated. In the light of my earlier comments on de-politicising the NHS, I turn, rather reluctantly, to the Government's record. I do so because it underlines once more the public dissatisfaction with that politicisation, and adds weight to my noble friend's basic proposition.
A recent Gallup poll found that more than half the respondents confessed to dissatisfaction at the way in which the Government are running the NHS. A similar poll in the Observer reveals the depth of scepticism: two-thirds of the public simply do not believe that waiting lists are getting shorter. The same poll found that only one in three people expect the NHS to improve over the next three or four years.
But this is not just about perception; it is about reality. The New Labour manifesto declares:
"We want to save and modernise the NHS".
But let us consider the facts. Waiting lists, and their coverage in the media, are what the public see. They are the bell-wether of public confidence. Labour pledged in its manifesto to cut inpatient waiting lists by 100,000. However, while the headline waiting list figures have come down by 87,000, the number of those waiting for more than three months for outpatient appointments has more than doubled from 250,000 to half a million—solving one problem and creating another. We were promised that 18-month waits for inpatient treatment would be eliminated by 31st March 1998. At the end of November 1999, 69 patients had been waiting for inpatient treatment for longer than 18 months.
Seeing a specialist is not the end of the line. According to the NHS Quarterly Review, the number of last-minute cancelled operations rose from 11,470 in the second quarter of 1998–99 to over 12,000 in the second quarter of 1999–00. That was the highest ever second quarter figure since records began.
I also draw attention to waiting times to see a specialist in cases of suspected breast cancer. The Government's White Paper stated that by April 1999 everyone with suspected breast cancer would be able to

271
see a specialist within two weeks of the GP deciding that the patient needed to be seen urgently. Figures available from the NHS Executive for the quarter ending September 1999 suggest that even six months after the deadline has passed this has not happened. Over 10 per cent of suspected breast cancer patients were not seen within the required two weeks. That is simply not acceptable.
I conclude with a five-point agenda. First, can we take some, much or all of the NHS out of the daily political exchange? Secondly, can we initiate a programme to publicise the successes of the NHS to raise the confidence of the public and the confidence and internal morale of the organisation? Thirdly, if this or any other government sets targets can we ensure that they are met? It is better to set low targets and build confidence than macho targets and fail. Fourthly, can we establish a better way to measure outputs which the media also regard as meaningful and can be agreed across the party divide, rather than the artificial measure of waiting lists?
The fifth point is the most worrying of all. For the first time there are strong indications that the public approval rating of the NHS is dropping among the young. It may be a blip but I believe that it is a trend. A political system which does not deliver a health service for the young of which they can be proud fails the country as a whole. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drum lean clearly stated, it is a unique agenda for a young modernising Prime Minister to change for the better the future of every man, woman and child in this country. He should grasp it with courage and enthusiasm.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I express gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing this debate. She will recognise from the way in which she introduced this subject, and the subsequent speech of her noble friend Earl Howe on the Opposition Front Bench, that this debate poses as many problems for her side as for the Government. We all recognise that one of the great features of the National Health Service is the very long-term nature of the policies related to it. All of us who are involved in the public debate when the electorate makes its choice every four or five years in the general election recognise that the timespan of some issues, which are exceedingly difficult to deal with, goes way beyond that period. That is certainly true in considering the resources of the National Health Service.
It takes eight years to train a doctor and many more years before a newly-qualified doctor achieves consultancy status and can play a significant part in the health service. Therefore, it is inevitable that in this debate we use catch 'phrases to identify the particular priorities of the moment. We recognise the limited significance of a policy to reduce NHS waiting lists against a background where it is an earnest of intent by which the Government can be measured given the short timescale within which they are forced to operate. This debate gives us the opportunity to look
272
at the longer term, and I hope that in the course of my short contribution I shall be able to concentrate on some of the issues in that context.
It is noticeable that in the debate thus far no one has commented on one contribution that the Government have already made to morale in the health service. I am all too well aware of the strains on health service staff at every level. Can anyone in this House recall when a government last decided to implement in full the recommendations of the review bodies concerned with health service pay and conditions? Surely, that is an earnest of very real intent.
But we accept that we have finite resources to meet an infinite demand. Demand increases with demographic changes. The ageing population alone increases the demands upon the health service. Technology, whether it be the development of new and expensive drugs or surgical techniques which become more generally available, produces its own cost escalator; and the expectations of people rise 'with every new discovery. Therefore, the inflation index that is appropriate for the health service is higher than that applied to the broader economy simply because NHS costs have an escalator within them. For that reason we need to concentrate on lower cost solutions.
There is no doubt that we can do a great deal more by concentrating on preventive rather than curative medicine. Emphasis on primary care and education, in whatever form, to ensure that people adopt strategies that make them less dependent on the expensive resources of the health service will assist. I also have in mind the more intelligent use of the support professions; for example pharmacy. In France, access to doctors is reduced because a significant amount of assistance is offered by pharmacists—far greater than ours are empowered to provide—at lower cost. We should look at international comparisons in relation to that practice, which I do not believe gives rise to concerns about political ideology.
I drafted one part of my speech in advance of the horrors of the past few days. I wanted to emphasise how important it was to change the relationship between those who consume health services—the general population—and the health professions. I find it difficult to express general points at this stage when the Shipman case illustrates with all its horror the particular problems that arise when a doctor abuses trust in such an extreme way. We all know that that was a bizarre, horrific and unique case, but, surely., the issue with which we should be concerned is the need for an effective way to measure performance and competence, let alone probity, to reassure people.
We should recognise the steps that the medical profession has taken to develop techniques to improve the measurement of competence. The assessment of GPs on a regular basis is being introduced. That system looks at whether a GP's practice, whatever his level of experience, is perhaps somewhat dated compared with the rapidly changing world in which we now live. His competence will now be adequately measured, and I believe that that will go a considerable way to meet the kinds of concerns raised by the

273
previous speaker, who spoke about the re-establishment of confidence in health service delivery. I agree that that is of supreme importance to all of us.
Despite the general propositions referred to in this debate, how can there ever be division among well-meaning people as to the desirability of providing the best possible healthcare that the nation can afford? Perhaps I may add to the aspiration adumbrated by these and other Benches. There are considerable merits in a health service which provides care at the point of need irrespective of ability to pay.
However, as regards increasing resources, while we on this side of the House envisage great difficulty in increasing the tax burden upon our people, private insurance as a solution is a non-starter. At present, private insurance aids the queue jumper and the advantaged against the ordinary member of the public. Private insurance concentrates upon those who are good risks in healthcare rather than the poorest. The private health service concentrates upon operations with high success rates which are relatively cheap. And—one might ask the Americans about this—a private health service is enormously costly to administer.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we no longer have time for Ministers who say that there is no crisis in the National Health Service. Those of us involved in the service—I have seen a great deal of it in the past two years from a patient's point of view—can only conclude that the NHS is in deep and almost intractable crisis. It is a time for honesty, openness, and facing up to facts. We need to think long term. We need to cast aside dogma and—I look hard at my Front Bench—political point scoring.
Looking back, we had every reason to be proud of the health service. We are proud of the people who created it. We are grateful to the people who serve in it now. But it is hard to be proud of the NHS now. Why do we put up with waiting lists? Other countries do not have them. Waiting lists do not serve any clinical function; they cause a great deal of distress to those who endure them. Why should we put up with the fact that we are not seen by a doctor until after midnight when we have arrived at casualty at five o'clock with a broken leg? Why should a person have to wait in casualty for six hours to see a doctor when, for example, his child has swallowed a coin and has to be kept calm, without food or water? Why should we put up with hospitals which are decaying, under-staffed and under-equipped?
Why should we put up with GPs who are so overstretched that they have no time for patients or to keep themselves up-to-date with modern medicine? If I wanted to book an appointment it could be the middle of next week before the GP would see me.
We are an increasingly wealthy country. There is no reason why we should put up with a National Health Service in this condition. If we paid personally for the service, it would have gone long ago. We would not put
274
up with being treated in that way by Tesco or any other supplier. It is only because it is paid for by government. It is because over the years my government and other parties have imposed cash limitations far below the amount that we, the people, would wish to see spent on healthcare that the service is in its present awful state.
We know that we have to pay more for the National Health Service. We do not need to look as far as Europe for a comparison. All we need to do in England is to bring our spending up to the standards that we provide for the Scots. The figure is 30 per cent higher per capita in Scotland than in England. I find it hard to understand how we can justify not bringing ourselves up to that standard. It proved impossible for my party to do so in the face of fire from the Labour Party on the financing of the National Health Service. It should be easier for the Labour Party to achieve that.
The solution is surely for the Government to involve all the people in the difficult decisions government must take. They must carry the public with them in decisions on how the NHS should be financed. If we were part of that decision-making process, we would not criticise the Government when they increase taxes or impose a specific levy to fund the NHS.
The Government should carry the public with them as regards the limitations of the NHS. Clearly there must be limitations because technology is racing ahead. Those limitations should be agreed by consensus. There must be a process whereby public opinion is taken into account by the NHS. Such a process was instituted as part of the GP fundholding scheme. While it may have had faults, it was a start in the right direction. Having destroyed that start, the Government have a duty to begin again.
We have to consider how we pay for the National Health Service. I share many of the doubts expressed by noble Lords opposite about the efficacy of insurance funding. It tends to introduce extra costs into the system. For instance, with car repairs insurance companies may pay twice the amount paid by the individual who pays for the repair himself. We should make comparisons with France, Germany and other countries which share similar beliefs about the social contract between government and people. There are other solutions to be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, raised some pertinent questions about a service which is free at the point of delivery "but you can't have it"—a form of rationing. We need to face up to these problems. We in this party need to ensure that we do not cast caltrops in the path of the Government merely to make their existence painful, thereby disadvantaging our citizens who need the Government to take long-term and difficult decisions.
We need a government who will give more information on the health service. We are becoming more capable, more involved citizens. In order to participate, we need information. We should institute a system of inspection. Clearly the results achieved by a doctor, say, in cancer surgery are significant. Some doctors achieve far better results than others

275
performing similar operations. A patient cannot judge that. One does not know the circumstances or the patients. We need a qualified inspectorate. Those inspection reports need to be made public, at least to GPs. GPs need to be able to refer their patients to the specialist of their choice. We may be able to compare one hospital with another but a GP has no choice for referral. He has to take what the local hospital offers. That is not good enough. We need choice for GPs and for patients.
We also need choice as regards conditions in hospitals. It is possible to find one ward in a hospital where the quality of nursing care makes one think one is being looked after by angels; and 30 yards away in another ward the staff have horns and pitchforks and make the patient's life a misery. There is no control or check. There is no auditing of the quality of care for patients. We need proper information about what is happening within the NHS.
People who work within the NHS need to be able to keep up to date with information. The systems are primitive. There is so much information that it is hard to absorb. The Internet will be a great boon, in particular when we have high data rates on it. The Government should pay a great deal of attention to that aspect.
We need a fundamental consideration of the roles of those working within the NHS. Why do we insist that an individual who wishes to become a GP has three of the best A-levels? We want them to like people and to have a certain amount of common sense. We are training the wrong people for the wrong job.
We need to ask many questions. We should not make it difficult for the Government to answer them. We should judge whether the Government are prepared to address those issues honestly and openly, and involve us in the discussions.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest, first, as a non-executive director of the London Ambulance Service and, secondly, as adviser to a number of companies with an involvement in health matters. Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing the debate. She has a long history within he health service and our paths have crossed on a number of occasions in various guises.
The noble Baroness made a most interesting speech. Most notably she spoke of the inexperience of today's top management team in the NHS which is subject to the capriciousness of political change. That made me think about my time from 1987 to 1998 as director of the Association of Community Health Councils. I calculated that I got through seven Secretaries of State for Health. Six of them were Conservative and I claim no part in that. However, I remember them all vividly because at one stage or another they all publicly denounced me—as did my right honourable friend Frank Dobson when he was Secretary of State. Clearly, I was doing something right—or wrong— during that period.
276
However, to say that there is a problem with the NHS because of that political system of management raises big and wide issues about our system of government. I suspect that they are beyond the terms of the debate and perhaps beyond the terms of the noble Baroness's proposals.
Having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, I am confident that the purpose of the debate is not to capitalise on the difficult few weeks experienced by the NHS and indulge in political point scoring. After all, we are in what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, called the annual January crisis. But the events of the past few weeks have triggered a significant debate on NHS funding which I believe has been based on false premises. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed up the problems with the Conservative's solution of insurance: that it is likely to cost a lot more. We shall require a greater contribution from GDP if we go down that route.
It must be recognised, first, that the NHS cannot do everything for everybody and it is proper to debate the limits to what is or is not appropriate for the health service. But it is also proper and right to debate the effectiveness not only of new treatments and drugs but of existing and long-established treatments. It used to be said that only 10 per cent of treatments were proven to be beneficial, that another 10 per cent were probably harmful and that the rest were unproven one way or the other. I am sure that that is apocryphal and I am not sure that anyone is in a position to test it. However, it is right and proper that we should institute arrangements which demonstrate whether the bulk of expenditure in the health service on particular treatments and procedures is well spent, appropriate and in the interests of the public.
In that context, the promise made by the Prime Minister on David Frost's sofa is enormously important. It is probably the most important statement made about the future of the health service for many years. It is a major long-term commitment of government investment in the NHS. However, I am worried that the tone of the debate has often suggested that the NHS is a drain on the nation's GDP. In fact, it makes a major contribution because the fact that the NHS succeeds in making us healthier means that we are all able to make a greater contribution to the nation's income.
The Government have already done a great deal for the health service. There has been a substantial cash improvement—more in real terms per annum than during previous governments. A major building programme is under way. The Government have recognised the importance of quality, introduced clinical governance and the Commission for Health Improvement. They have brought general practice into the managed framework of the NHS, which, as the NHS Confederation points out, is crucial in enabling improvements to quality. They have introduced the national service frameworks and they are introducing the drop-in centres and NHS Direct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about her two reports and the theme of giving people power. There is a trend which one can discern over a

277
number of years; first, from a time when we all expected doctor-led decision-taking: the doctor knew best. More recently, there has been an expectation that doctors will listen; that the GPs will take decisions having elicited the patients' views.
We are now moving into an era in which we should expect shared decision-taking; where the GP and the patient share information and then together reach a decision on the appropriate course of action. But I suspect that we shall rapidly reach a place where there is patient-led decision- taking; where the GP provides the information and advice and the patient decides on the basis of it.
Yesterday, I spoke to a GP who confirms that most days someone visits his surgery who has already looked up his condition on the Internet and is equipped with a great deal of information about it. I am told that statistics show that half of Internet users access health sites. Indeed, health matters are almost as popular as pornography on the Internet!
However, using the Internet, it is difficult to find specific information in respect of health. There must be questions about whether or not the information provided is accurate. Often it is sponsored by those with an interest; for example, a drug company. So what the public need is evidence-based information to help them make decisions. It could come through NHS Direct, whether by telephone or the new Internet service, but also through leaflets and videos. Most patients welcome more information. It leads to less conflict with doctors and it changes behaviour. There is evidence, for example, that surgery intervention in prostate treatment declines substantially if people are provided with sufficient information. Patient information leads to better healthcare, better compliance and better outcomes.
I am concerned that NHS Direct is being offered as a solution to the problems which may or may not exist in acute care. The monitoring information that I have seen about one pilot suggested that, yes, it was true that the number of people who were otherwise planning to call an ambulance or take themselves to A&E were persuaded that that was unnecessary. However, a larger number than those who were dissuaded, who had been planning perhaps to wait and see their GPs, were told to go to A&E or to call the ambulance service. Therefore, it is a fallacy to believe that these services will reduce demand on acute services.
My view is that NHS Direct and the drop-in centres are new, valuable services but they might not reduce pressure on established areas of service. They provide an opportunity to create a modern people's NHS. As NHS Direct protocols develop, and as the computer systems develop, there is an opportunity to provide a universal system of triage; one which can be applicable in a GP's surgery, a hospital waiting room and used in a variety of contexts. Once you give everyone a smart card and unique IDs containing their medical records, that information can be accessed as part of the service,
278
forming something which is truly interactive. Vitally important opportunities exist and they must not be lost because people expect too much from NHS Direct.
The NHS is popular; it is a people's service, and it needs to prepare for the future in which patients expect much more in the way of information, choice and respect from NHS professionals.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the debate. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I go off at a slight tangent, although I do not believe that I shall be totally alone.
Most of the debate has been about someone dealing with a pool of water in his house. I want to talk about prevention; in other words, I shall be the person who says, "You should have had that pipe fixed", and not offer to get a bucket to get rid of the water.
Much of what is done in the health service involves people who suffer from a more sedentary lifestyle. We are always hearing about bad sport facilities at schools, fat teenagers and the problems of obesity. A great deal of that is due to the fact that we lead a sedentary lifestyle: we do not walk to work and most jobs do not involve physical activity. That has led to huge cultural shifts and certain medical gains. People no longer have compressed spines or arthritis in their fingers. However, it is undeniable that lack of physical activity leads to health problems early on in life.
However, the discipline of sports medicine may be able to help with those problems through the better training of doctors to give advice. Sports medicine does not exclusively address sport and most certainly does not concentrate only on sport at the elite level. Athletes working at the elite level are operating at 100 per cent of their physical capacity in one particular narrow range of activity. Usually they are trying for 101 per cent. I would not expect the NHS to deal with such activities, for the simple reason that if an athlete had to join a waiting list to get help with a fitness regime for an international event, the athlete would miss the event and clog up the system.
In 1977 a definition of sports medicine was universally adopted, brought forward from the foundation of the Institute for Cardiology and Sports Medicine in Cologne in 1958:
"Sports medicine includes those theoretical and practical branches of medicine which investigate the influence of exercise, training, and sport on healthy and ill people, as well as the effects of lack of exercise, to produce useful results for prevention. therapy, rehabilitation and the athlete".
That suggests that we can learn from sports medicine.
Unfortunately there is no career structure in this field within the medical system of the National Health Service. There is no provision for people to be trained. The House has just heard a speech which rightly pointed out that information is extremely helpful. Doctors need to be able to give out accurate information, but often doctors are not well qualified to help their patients with lifestyle information.

279
I approach this subject from the point of view of a sportsman, complete with the familiar horror stories that are shared by many sportsmen of my age. When you visited the GP with a leg injury, he would stare blankly as you described what had happened and then say, "Rest for six weeks". If pressed, he would then say, "Rest for 12 weeks". The muscle on the damaged leg would lose both quantity and quality, the ligaments would shorten and the entire limb would be weaker. When you returned to play there was an excellent chance of incurring the same injury again.
All forms of exercise can be of benefit and all forms of exercise enable people to become healthier individuals. The athlete is only an extreme example of that. Older people would benefit from exercise by becoming healthier. In old age one or the main forms of disability is when a person can no longer achieve a sitting position unaided. That is in fact a definition of disability. It is caused by loss of muscle tone and quality. Osteoporosis is helped by changing from a sedentary lifestyle. The simple act of walking will toughen bones. Such activity—I shall not go into detail because far too many doctors are contributing to the debate today—must be encouraged.
However, unless doctors are trained to give correct advice, which at the moment they are not, the problems will continue. While I appreciate that the general medical education of doctors will cover all these areas, doctors—like everyone else—need plenty of specific information. That is because they are important conduits of information to help everyone achieve a healthier lifestyle.
Furthermore, provision must be made for everyone to be able to change to a healthier way of life. Diet is of course vitally important, along with adequate advice on alcohol consumption and smoking. Nevertheless, concentration on physical activity is one of the most effective methods of achieving better health. However, if you live in a town with no gymnasium or swimming pool—in recent years my own City of Norwich has lost two of its public gymnasiums and a swimming pool—it can be very difficult indeed to take proper exercise. Trained staff must also be on hand to give accurate advice and help to implement the doctor's plans. If this form of medicine were taken more seriously, by ensuring that consultant posts were established, that would send a clear message and provide a strong incentive for the area to expand.
I do not know whether the provision of gymnasiums should be part of the remit of the health service, but I do believe that they could be justified as part of a wider health programme. Such provision would eventually cut down on the number of people making demands on the health service. A healthy and strong person will throw off the effects of flu far more speedily than someone who is not. We should adopt a holistic approach and, to an extent, implement joined-up government in this area. If we did this, we might also produce a few more first-class athletes, as well as get rid of some podgy teenagers.
280
I believe that well-structured fitness regimes forming part of the whole healthcare programme would have many benefits. For instance, it would be possible to speak at length on the wider benefits of sports activities such as greater social inclusion. However, until the entire approach to fitness and exercise changes, we shall not be able to deal with increasing levels of poor health that are the result of the basic fact that people have allowed themselves to deteriorate and are looking to the National Health Service to provide a Band-Aid for a bad lifestyle.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I am delighted to rise from my sedentary position and congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on her timeliness in initiating this debate. Its quality attests to the high standard she set in her introduction. Since the wider health debate erupted recently, I felt at first a twinge of sympathy, first, for the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on whose Select Committee I have had the honour to serve, and, secondly—dare I say this?—for the Prime Minister. That is because I have been there. An interview hits the headlines, the Prime Minister must respond, somebody grabs a line to take, the Treasury erupts and the department has not got a clue what the Prime Minister is talking about. It is all very familiar.
However, my sympathy has been somewhat eroded because of a tendency on the part of the Government to cover up confusion about the figures by saying that it is someone else's fault, notably the Government's predecessors. I am glad to say, however, that this afternoon's debate has been almost entirely free of such comments. However, I have taken the trouble to make some basic calculations derived from published data. If one examines what has happened to net spending on the health service over the past decade, it is clear that over the seven years of the premiership of the previous Prime Minister, real spending on the health service increased by 3.5 per cent a year. In the first two years of this Government, net spending has increased by 3 per cent a year. I mention that not so much to make a statistical point, but to emphasise the importance of looking at outcomes. As anyone who has ever battled over numbers with the Treasury knows, the truth is that plans rarely turn out exactly as may have been indicated.
That is not only because of annual juggling to cope with temporary crises, but because those plans also depend on forecasts for inflation. Even with the low levels of inflation this Government were lucky enough to inherit, small movements in inflation can push the real increase in health spending up or down by as much as one half. That is why it is important to focus on outcomes because that enables one to look at what has happened to costs in the health service. Many speakers have emphasised the fact that costs in the health service do not always move in line with costs in the economy as a whole. Over the past two years, it is clear that the Government have been squeezing down costs, basically by holding down health service pay.

281
I do not believe for one moment that there is some kind of entitlement to a rate of pay. However, I do say that those who run the health service have a responsibility to deliver rates of pay that will attract and retain staff. It is simply no good to say that it is all a matter of long-term planning if good staff cannot be attracted and retained. A great deal has been made of the recent increases in pay, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, graphically pointed out, a large chunk of this year's increase for health service costs will be absorbed by extra changes, notably, I am sorry to say, in regulation. Therefore, there will continue to be a squeeze, and it cannot last.
For approximately 100 years hospitals in this country relied on dedicated but not highly paid work by women because there were not many other respectable jobs that women could do. Those days are long gone. Approximately 88 per cent of the health service still consists of women, for which the health service has to compete in a completely different labour market. It will not recruit or retain unless it pays the rate to do so.
The Prime Minister has given a commitment to increase spending on the health service. I am sure that we shall hear from the Minister rather more about what that commitment means. He started by saying that he would raise spending in this country to the average for the European Union as a whole. I do not need to take a great deal of your Lordships' time to say that it has been pointed out by many people that 5 per cent increases in health service spending simply will not fill that gap. Not on the most favourable interpretation over a five-year period can they even fill half of the gap. However, we are then told by Downing Street that the Prime Minister was referring to the gap between public sector spending in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.
On that point, I am a little puzzled. Is the Prime Minister saying that the gap in health spending between this country and Europe will be filled by private healthcare spending? It would require us to treble private healthcare spending over a five-year period in order to do so. If that is his policy, I should be most interested to hear it. I do not believe that that is what voters at the last election heard.
Leaving aside that issue, there remains the question of the use of the private sector. Given the direction of some of the policy which comes from Downing Street, I find it puzzling that at the moment the Government should be so reluctant to use the resources of the private sector to fill gaps in the National Health Service. Quite clearly, the system is running at the edge of its capacity. There is capacity in the private sector. As the Financial Times rightly said in a recent leader, it displays a disturbing degree of ideology that Ministers are not prepared to make use of that capacity to provide operations for people who need them, who have their operations cancelled and who have a long wait for their operations.
That is redolent of another attitude which I find very strange. That is the emphasis on the size of the waiting list rather than the length of time one waits for an
282
operation. It is of very little interest to someone who has a long wait to know that other people are waiting too. What is important is the length of the wait and how many times an operation is cancelled.
I may have spoken rather strongly. If I have, I apologise to your Lordships. However, I feel that in some ways I have earned the right to do so. The government for which I had the honour to work showed their commitment to the National Health Service in terms of reforms, underpinned with financial resources. Of course, they did not solve all the problems. I have the deepest sympathy for the Minister in managing the health service, acquiring the resources from the Treasury in order to do so, and exploring new means of delivery and financing. However, I am sure that in his reply to the debate we shall not have any nonsense from his Benches about a monopoly of commitment and concern for the health service.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as chairman of a health authority, I am well aware of the difficulties and problems and also the successes that have faced the health service over the past few weeks. I, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating the debate, and for the work that she has done for the health service in her years as a Minister, before that, and beyond. I was interested in her comments about the inexperience of Ministers, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. With regard to our public services, I wonder whether she agrees with me that the role of government can perhaps best be summed up as that of "steering, not rowing".
I hope, too, that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I disagree with her on the issue of competition. When I became chairman of a health authority, I found two hospitals less than 20 miles apart which were attempting to provide exactly the same services for their populations. Having taught them to collaborate under the direction of the Government, they have now released a new energy to support services for their people. I believe that that has been to the benefit of our population.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the financial questions and issues. I do not propose to try to emulate the speeches that have gone before or those that will come after mine. I add simply that, when we look at finance, we should take care also to look at the demands that we place on the health service and the changes in demand which will occur in the future. We need also to be clear that the drivers for change in the health service are not only money but also issues of accreditation and technology.
When I read the title of the debate, I tried to work out how I would describe the state of the health service. What would be the backdrop against which I would judge it? I could look at the history of the health service and see what state we are in now compared to where we used to be. However, I know that it is foolish to do

283
that. One cannot look backwards, particularly in relation to healthcare, which is constantly changing. The past is, indeed, another country.
In the past few weeks, many people have suggested that I go to look at other countries. The Caribbean has been mentioned, which is a very nice idea! In view of the number and type of statistics which have been put to me about different countries' experiences of health services, I was going to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, for whore I have enormous sympathy, that perhaps he and I might have a field trip there together!
However, I want to look forward. If I look forward 20 years to the kind of health service which I wish to see for my children, who will then be 28 and 30 years old, I have three clear objectives for them. First, life expectancy should he the same for all, regardless of social and economic background. Secondly, regardless of where they live, they should have access to high quality healthcare, including treatment and drugs. Thirdly, they should have improved their own health, learning over the years how better to take care of themselves and, indeed, of their families.
In order to achieve those objectives, a huge investment is required. However, that involves not simply an investment in the health service. We know that life expectancy has far more to do with the kind of life that we live, the kind of work that we do, the housing that we live in and the places that we visit. We know, too, that we must be flexible in the investment that we put into the different parts of our economy. We need to be able to move money around.
In my own health authority, many people become bored when I talk about the need to move away from the crisis management, for example, of elderly people in the winter. It is too late when they end up on trolleys in our hospitals with hypothermia. In my health economy and, indeed, throughout the country, we need to be able to make sure that, by using the money creatively and wisely, elderly people do not even reach the point of arriving at hospital. That requires a whole range of services to work together.
We need to have an overview of the quality of healthcare and to be sure that we know what level of quality we have. We need also to have an overview in terms of deciding which drugs we shall use. Various drugs have been mentioned today. However, speaking from my own experience, it is incredibly difficult to know the marginal benefit of some drugs when one's public health people are very busy and are trying to give a measured view. Sometimes that view contrasts with the one put forward by the pharmaceutical industry. We need to make sure that we have an independent assessment of drugs. Most importantly, we must design our healthcare systems to improve health. I have in mind the old adage of "prevention, not cure". I hope also that those objectives will be used to measure the state of our health service.
Having set out some of my objectives for the future, I looked at where we are now. We have greater investment in the health service. In ray pot of gold at my health authority, I have £20 million more than I had last year. That is a real increase. As the noble
284
Baroness, Lady Hogg, said, it is true that a great deal of that will go towards increasing the amount of money paid to staff. However, I was fortunate that this winter I used no agency staff in my health authority. Only one patient was transferred away, but that was one too many.
Now I have the flexibility to move money around. I want more flexibility, just as I should like to have more money. However, I want to be able to do more in terms of working with other agencies to support the health of the people of my community. I know that we now have the Commission for Health Improvement and NICE. They support me in the job that I do in making decisions about how best to spend the money to provide the best possible care. Sometimes it is not the drugs that will provide the best care. Investment in other aspects of healthcare, in therapies of a different kind in support for people, is money better spent.
Most of all, we have the health improvement programme and that is the backdrop against which I have to design all healthcare. That means that I am able to look at the population of my health economy; to look at the areas that need support and the different kinds of people who live in my area; and target and invest in helping them to stay healthy and to be cured when they are ill. That to me is fundamentally important for the future. I do not forget the problems that we have at the present. I am well aware that we have to do a great deal, but I am very confident that if you start to project forward and work backwards, which is always my view of how best to plan, we can develop a healthcare system within the public finances that will support our people for the future.
6.00 p.m.
Lord Bell: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for introducing this debate and in particular I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Hogg for her brilliant contribution—even if it did contain most of what I was going to say. Nevertheless, I must admit that that I am somewhat confused. Is our National Health Service something we should cherish and regard fondly as a truly wonderful service on which we must lavish attention and support because it is so good? Or should we see it as a badly-run, bureaucratic structure which makes terrible mistakes and is constantly in need of more funding that can never be satisfied?
I am no longer clear on the matter, such are the mixed messages of the day, including those in this debate. We have all seen the headlines and they lurch from screams of "under-funding" to "another fatal mistake by the NHS". I take this opportunity to extend my sympathies to the relatives of the victims of Dr Harold Shipman, who committed such terrible crimes. I endorse the Secretary of State for Health's comments that the public should not take this one man as an example of the classic relationship between patients and doctors.
What I am clear about, however, is the great respect we attach to nurses and doctors, surgeons and consultants. Those are the people we see as having the

285
power of life and death in their hands. It is a powerful attraction and a right one. It is right that we should hold them in the highest regard and expect the highest standards. I am also struck by the very low regard we seem to have for administrators and managers.
I have personally experienced the health professionals' work in both the private and the public sectors; as a child with a rare blood disease and as an adult fighting cancer. Both experiences were positive and good—after all, I am still here.
The noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, rehearsed the everyday successes of the National Health Service and while agreeing with him, I do not want to repeat them. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege is so right in saying that patients do not care about administration and structure but just wanted to be looked after. Despite that, I do not claim to be an expert on the health services—I am not a doctor, merely a patient—but I have experienced all three sectors: the public, the private and the voluntary. As regards the latter, I am a trustee of Bacup Living with Cancer, as is the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke earlier today— a rather odd Liberal Democrat and Conservative partnership. There are also the innumerable fundraising campaigns that I have helped to run for many charities all designed to help people with health problems. I have seen the private and the public sectors working happily and effectively together. The question in my mind is why the Government cannot see those sectors working together and think all solutions to healthcare lie in more work and money for the National Health Service.
Yes, the National Health Service is the focus of political debate, but I do not believe that any discussion on the National Health Service, or healthcare for that matter, can be constructive if it is driven by political ideology. The NHS is about saving lives and improving the quality of life. It is far too serious an issue to be at the mercy of political persuasions and pandering.
I wish to raise four points about healthcare today and I hope that at the end of it at least some of your Lordships will be convinced, if you are not already, by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that the NHS should be left to be run by the health professionals. That should be done in as financially supportive environment as is possible, taking great support from the other two providers of our nation's healthcare services—the private and the voluntary sectors—and not under-selling or over-promoting any of them. Only then will we have a chance of delivering to the British people what they want and are entitled to—first-class healthcare.
First, the Labour Party claims that it has a monopoly on caring and that that is what makes it the best steward of the National Health Service. Further, it claims also that the Conservative do not care. That is patent nonsense and narrows the debate to a party argument instead of a constructive discussion.
My company employs 600 people. We provide private health insurance for all our employees and that insurance can be used also for the immediate family.
286
We also contract two general practitioners and pay for any member of staff requiring their services urgently. Additionally, we often cover the expenses for treatments that have become a part of everyday life; be they alternative therapies, addiction clinics, counselling or care for those suffering personal tragedies or misfortunes. We extend that care through the very real community which is our workforce. We are, I feel, a truly caring and compassionate employer, the like of which should be actively encouraged by any government, and I am a Conservative.
Would it be too large a dose of common sense to suggest that the smallest of measures—perhaps the removal or reduction of tax on private health insurance—might go a long way towards encouraging other businesses to behave like mine and take their employee's health provision into their own hands, particularly small businesses in our enterprise economy, in much the same way as the Government encourage the elderly to provide for their long-term care? Would that not reduce the burden on the NHS and enable it to offer more care to people in need? Of course it would. Private insurance does not cover every need but private and public partnership does.
As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, over the first 1000 days of New Labour, each day an extra 264 people joined the waiting list to see a hospital consultant. A perfectly predictable outbreak of flu became an epidemic, or at least a half an epidemic, according the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at Question Time a week or so ago. That outbreak threatened to overwhelm the NHS despite the large numbers of people who looked after themselves.
Obviously the NHS does have a problem and it needs a solution. The Labour Party's caring for the NHS helps it to win elections—but it should not. Certainly it played politics with health in 1997 when it used the phrase "24 hours to save the NHS". It was not true then and is not true now. The NHS is not any better, as Labour promised it would be.
The winter crisis gave people their first real opportunity to judge this Government's stewardship of the NHS—they could judge both word and deed. What they heard were all too many words and what they got were all too few deeds.
Secondly, the Labour Party is completely wrong when it labels members of the Conservative Party as extremists because, it alleges, they want to privatise the National Health Service. We do not and have never wanted to privatise the National Health Service and I thought my noble friend Lady Hogg made that very clear in expressing the view of the previous government.
What the Conservatives want to do is apply common sense policies to the NHS to make it better and not to allow stubborn ideology to stand in the way of the commonsense and practical solutions that will work. It must be right to encourage the traditional three-way health partnership and so drive up standards of care. It must be right to encourage the voluntary sector that provides so much—the Red

287
Cross, St John's Ambulance, medical research, cancer nurses, hospital car services, leagues of friends, major fund-raising initiatives for hospitals and so on. For example, tax relief on donations to medical charities would be no bad idea. It is not yet Conservative policy, but I shall keep trying.
It must right to allow the professionals in doctors' surgeries and clinics in hospitals to take decisions about how to deliver a strong healthcare system, based on medical need and not political priority; to provide them with the funds and not to tell them how to do their jobs.
It must be right to use the resources of the private sector in a real public-private partnership with the NHS. We do so already and we do in almost every other public service in Britain today; namely, in transport, in education and even in welfare.
Such ideas are not extreme, but Labour's policy is. Labour wants to deny the independent sector any role in making the health service better. It thinks it is better to leave intensive care beds in independent hospitals empty than to save lives. Labour wants all decisions taken in Whitehall by politicians. Total national ownership and management has been discredited for so many years but that does not stop it being Labour's recipe for modernising the health service.
Its recipe for modernisation involves dismissing the private sector and ignoring the voluntary one. What we really need to do is to use every means we can to lever new energy and support into all three parts: public, independent and voluntary. I am not saying that we can take the politics out of health but surely we can rid it of ideology. For the Government those sectors are in competition not complementary. For them, choice is an enemy to be fought rather than a friend to be embraced. People support all three sectors with money and commitment. They should all be listened to because they are all citizens. The private sector is so much bigger than is generally recognised. It is not just a question of healthcare insurance, private appointments and independent hospitals, it also embraces the whole area of self-medication, the advice of chemists and the complete range of health-promotion activity developed by the private sector.
Millions of pounds are spent every year encouraging prevention and cure, not to mention the private sector's vital research in the development and manufacture of drugs and medical equipment. Any mention of private sector partnership is dismissed as a sinister plot to privatise the NHS; it is not. The Government should recognise that. NHS Direct is a sensible and modern initiative and should be welcomed.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that this is a timed debate. This is only the second time that anyone has gone past the allotted time.
Lord Bell: My Lords, I am sorry to have gone beyond the time allowed. My noble friend Lord Chadlington told me I would and he was right. I shall listen to him in future.
288
My message to the Labour Government is: stop accusing the Conservatives of wanting to privatise the NHS—we do not; stop claiming that Labour has a monopoly of caring—it does not; stop claiming that more money is the only answer when it is not; the NHS can be run like a modern business; pay people properly, supply proper working conditions and training; create direct, decent facilities; stop talking about caring and ideology and do something. Empower the people who run the NHS.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, like other speakers, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for having given us another opportunity to discuss the state of the NHS. It is right that this subject should be before the House regularly.
The debate has attracted a long list of speakers who have a great level of expertise and profound knowledge of the NHS. I am not so qualified. I am merely a patient of the NHS but I owe it a great debt. I want to refer briefly to three issues: first, the well-founded anxieties that the NHS is inadequately funded, which have dominated the debate tonight. It does not allay our concerns that almost from its inception the NHS has been under-funded. It has always been up against the growing pressures and demands stemming from huge advances in scientific knowledge and technology, and fundamental demographic changes which are still at work in our society.
I understand that over the next 25 years the number of people over 60 in the countries of the European Union is estimated to increase by almost 50 per cent. Therein lies a challenge in financial terms and in terms of delivery of service.
I wonder whether there is an answer to the question, "How much money do we need to run the health service?". All I know is that the NHS must ask for every penny it can possibly get. The justification for such a demand on public finances is that it is providing best possible value for money; that it is using the resources in the most effective way possible. I accept that.
One is bound to accept—it is undeniable—that the NHS requires an injection of substantially more cash. At the same time, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that the arguments should not focus entirely on the issue of funding. I believe that another policy message is coming through: that the solution may not always lie in more of the same measures as were served up in the past. There is a need to encourage more innovation. I note that my noble friend Lord Rea has been rather cautious in his approach to NHS Direct. I submit that NHS Direct is a striking illustration of the importance of innovation. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government are contemplating any further innovations possibly based on the experienced gained by and within NHS Direct?
I turn to my second point; that is, the needs of the medical schools for more funds to enable them to pay proper salaries to the teachers of medicine and their

289
staff. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, who is specially qualified and interested in this subject, eloquently made the case today, and not just today; he also made the case in the debate on universities on 8th December last. It struck me as very worrying indeed that today there are at least 67 vacant clinical chairs across the specialties in the UK. I believe that half of them have been vacant for more than one year.
I welcome the news that there is to be a substantial increase in medical student numbers. But the quality of their education and training, and the quality of the National Health Service that we will need in the future, lies to a considerable extent in the hands of teachers of medicine today. When the Minister winds up the debate, I should like to hear from him that the proper funding of the medical schools is an ingredient that will go into the calculation of the current comprehensive spending review.
My final comment concerns the NHS and devolution, which has not been touched upon in the debate tonight. However, it is now nine months since responsibility for the health service in Scotland and Wales was transferred to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. I greatly welcomed the devolution settlement. But the devolved institutions will also work in partnership with the departments of the UK Government.
It is important that, when the functional departments in Whitehall are considering new policy initiatives or formulating new primary or subordinate legislation in the area of or affecting the devolved subjects, the Assembly officials in Cardiff should be informed at an early stage so that the views of the Assembly can be fed in at an early stage and vice versa. That leads me naturally to ask: what steps have been taken to agree a concordat between the Department of Health in London and the Welsh Assembly executive?
I also believe that it would be of interest to the House generally to know how many new powers for making delegated legislation relating to health functions in Wales are included in primary legislation introduced since last May. I suggest that the answer may be one point of reference in the debate about the future role of the reformed House. If my noble friend the Minister cannot answer these questions today, I should be grateful if he could let me have the information in due course.
Be that as it may, I conclude by reminding noble Lords that the health services in the four countries of the United Kingdom are part of the National Health Service based on an Act of Parliament which remains, in the opinion of most of us, among the most progressive legislation of the past 100 years.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who, as always, spoke with distinction and informed knowledge. I begin by declaring an interest. I am the unpaid deputy chairman of Nuffield Hospitals, one of
290
the country's largest charities. I hope that your Lordships will accept that I am not speaking on behalf of Nuffield Hospitals but on a point of principle.
There is no need for me to tell your Lordships that the NHS is in dire straits and so, for the sake of everyone, we all have to search for initiatives which will alleviate this serious problem. One of the first measures that the newly-elected Labour Government took in May 1997 was to remove the modest tax allowance available to those older people who had private medical insurance. At a stroke the Government increased the demands on the NHS and, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean stated, an extra quarter of a million people, who had stretched themselves to pay the premiums, were no longer able to cope.
It is the elderly who need the service the most. As a consequence, many of those who had prudently catered for their medical requirements became an additional responsibility on an already fully-extended NHS. We have an ageing population who naturally want and expect to benefit from all the developments in techniques and drugs to enhance the quality of later life.
It seems incredible that a political party can be so hidebound and blinkered by dogma that it is not willing to accept the consequences of its actions. For the Prime Minister to state that private health insurance is not the answer is a disgrace. Of course it is not the complete answer, but it could go some way to relieving pressure on an over-burdened service whose loyal staff do their best to cope with a dreadful situation. It is our duty to provide high quality care to everyone in this country, regardless of his or her financial situation.
It was with revulsion that we read of gravely ill people being bussed hundreds of miles in search of the necessary care when I understand that local private hospitals in London were not even consulted as to whether or not any intensive care beds were available. I found the mealy-mouthed words of the Minister in answer to my noble friend Lord Howe quite unacceptable when he said that national health trusts could make their own local arrangements with the private sector. Surely when people are dying from lack of beds and lying on trolleys for hours, the Government should have taken the lead by welcoming and supporting the involvement of private hospitals, wherever possible, for the common good of all our people.
Personally I believe that the tax concession should be restored to those who had it previously, and in addition should be extended to anyone who wishes to provide for their care. It is strange that the Government are so hostile to private medicine when the NHS, with 25 per cent of all private beds, is the largest provider. NHS trusts would benefit from the increased income generated. In the public debate that must now ensue it is vital to see, as we have heard from many other noble Lords, how other countries manage their healthcare. It seems clear that in France and Germany private involvement is providing a much higher quality of care than in Britain.

291
I remember with incredulity the commotion over Jennifer's ear in the run-up to the 1992 election. There was a problem, but not one that can in any way be compared with the crisis of today. Mr. Blair appears to be at best complacent over the situation which has arisen during his stewardship. Like my noble friend Lord Bell, I shall never forget the scandalous advertisement that appeared the day before polling day in 1997—"24 hours to save the NHS". Inflammatory remarks like that can only cause fear and anguish for many elderly people. I am sure that many of those who were seduced and voted new Labour the next day regret their actions as they contemplate the service today when one cannot even arrange an appointment with a consultant, never mind get on to the waiting list for a hospital admission.
I was alarmed that the pay increases for nurses and other staff over and above inflation are not to be funded. That will undoubtedly lead to cuts in some services, thus reducing patient care. The time has come for the Government to stop listening to their spin doctors and face reality. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, a most highly respected, distinguished and dedicated consultant, criticised the Government's handling of the NHS. I understand from the press that he was treated most shabbily by Alastair Campbell for stating the truth. But people are not stupid and are much more likely to believe the noble Lord than the propaganda machine of new Labour.
The most frequent toast given any where is "Good health". We have always accepted that good health is a gift much treasured, but today it is even more essential to stay fit and well as we do not know, should we fall ill, how the system will care for us. Will we receive treatment? Will we be given essential drugs?
Some people will receive the care we expect. But some—the old, the weak and the vulnerable—may not. It is up to us, collectively, to do everything in our power to ensure that those who need care receive it with dignity as and when it is required. Our goal must be an NHS of the highest standard and a beacon of excellence that we can cherish.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for making it possible to conduct this debate and for leading it. I regret that, due to my NHS commitments this morning, I could not be here at the start of the debate. I was particularly sorry to miss the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I hope that I can be forgiven for this transgression by your Lordships, the noble Baroness, the Minister and all those who spoke earlier, and I thank all for allowing me to speak at this late stage of the debate.
There can be no one in this House or in the land today who is not affected by the pain and suffering inflicted on the relatives and friends of the victims of the evil deeds committed by an evil man. I extend my deep-felt sympathy to all relatives and friends of those who suffered at his hands.
292
The fact that that evil man belonged to my profession—a profession privileged to have the skills to save lives—puts a responsibility on me and others in my profession to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that never happens again. But the profession must do more if it is to regain any lost public confidence and maintain the privilege of self-regulation. It must rid the profession of incompetent doctors; be more accountable and transparent; and, above all, regulate only in the interests of the public. That is what the profession must pledge to do, whatever else the government inquiry recommends, for the relatives and friends of those that were murdered.
I also believe that many thousands of doctors who work in the NHS, in the best interests of the patients, will also wish that. No doctor should ever abuse the trust and confidence placed in her or him by patients and their relatives. If they do, they cannot remain members of the profession. We must also demonstrate that we practise to high moral and ethical standards and remain competent.
I should like to say something about the state of the NHS today. It is an NHS destabilised by the reforms of an internal market; with clinical services starved of funds by the resources spent in establishing, maintaining and then dismantling that internal market. Now we have fewer beds, and a shortage of nurses, midwives and doctors. There is low morale among those who provide the service. There are long waiting times and waiting lists. To tell a lady that she needs surgery but cannot have it for at least eight months is not pleasant. We have poor outcome indicators of diseases, including cancer, and a service that is under-resourced.
With the will to go with the intellectual thinking, there is no reason why the NHS cannot deliver a world-class service in every aspect; a service with which the public will be pleased; of which those who provide it will be proud; and a service for which the politicians who make it happen will receive the credit. Surely a worthy aim is a service adequately resourced. I hope that the Minister agrees.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, it is with a real sense of diffidence that I rise to speak tonight because I am very much a layman amid a galaxy of experts of all kinds.
I should like to place on record my own good feelings in relation to the NHS and my family. A few years ago, an elderly relative of mine was found to be suffering from cancer. The treatment she received was swift, excellent and kept her alive for six years. My personal recollections, therefore, are good.
However, I know that there are many ways in which the NHS is a creaking machine and it behoves all of us to try to seek a consensus, as others before me in this debate have indicated. Alternatively, if not a consensus, we should seek at least a constructive debate as to the best way forward without impugning base motives to other parties. I have seen this over the years in my political life in the other place. I found it increasingly depressing that the NHS was treated like

293
some political football. At the beginning of this new century, surely we ought to turn over a new leaf to try to look for ways in which we might go forward together.
I was much interested in the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Biffen that this might be the subject of inquiry for a Select Committee in the other place. I should like to go one step better than that. I think that the ideal Select Committee would be here, in this House, where there are so many people who could contribute because of their deep knowledge and experience. I hope that this might be something which could be seriously considered, and soon. I hope that such a committee would not rule out, as, sadly, the Prime Minister seemed to do, the possibility of using the private sector. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that total reliance on an insurance scheme or anything else would be the ideal or something for which we should be working. There are many compromises; many other suggestions that might be made. It would be disappointing if the Prime Minister ruled out all of those as a matter of principle. I hope that he may be persuaded to think again on that particular issue.
Certainly, we may need to look to greater taxation. I suspect that the public would be far more willing to accept higher taxation if the taxes raised were earmarked for that purpose. I believe that the technical phrase is "hypothecation". I am very well aware that this will be deep, dark heresy so far as the Treasury is concerned. Throughout my political career, the Treasury has taken absolutely every care to ensure that it has a free rein in how they dispose of the money that comes in through various sources of taxation. None the less, I think we should still look at this; Treasury mandarins notwithstanding.
I turn to other issues that are of concern to me. One is what I call this obsession with targets. We have seen this notably in the drive to shorten waiting lists. It seems to me that unless the means—either of money, manpower, equipment, hospital beds or nurses—are there to support this, it is really an unrealistic expectation and it can only lead to distortions in care. I do not know how much truth there is in this, but it seems to me quite feasible that it would easier to take the easy operations rather than the difficult ones in order to reduce one's waiting times. That does not seem to me to be excellent healthcare. I do not think that we should put the practitioners in the National Health Service under that kind of pressure unless we are prepared to will them the means to carry it out in a reasonable fashion.
I turn to the issue of dentists who have had hardly a mention in this debate so far. There is a very great shortage of dentists. I know that the Government have what I think they call "easy-access centres" to try to increase the numbers of those seeing a dentist. I understand from the British Dental Association that it calculates that up to 4 million people are waiting to see a dentist and do not have one under the National Health Service. If that figure is correct—or even if it were half that—it seems to me a very great worry,
294
bearing in mind that neglect of dental problems can lead to other health problems as well. I know that in my latter years as a Member of Parliament, one of the recurring worries that constituents brought to me, either through letters or at advice bureaux, was inability to find a dentist. So far as I can judge, the situation has changed very little at all. In fact, it is probably worse.
I turn to the question of the shortage of nurses. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hogg put her finger on it absolutely when she pointed out that as there are many other careers open to young men, and particularly to young women, there therefore needs to be far greater incentives to bring them into nursing. Although I am quite sure that good pay will be an incentive, the conditions in which they work also seem to me to be important. If they are working in poor conditions under great stress, I do not think that money will be enough, either to bring them in or to retain them.
That brings me to those nurses who have already left the service, having trained. I have spoken to one or two friends who have been nurses in the past. I have asked them why they do not go back, even if only on a part-time basis. They seem slightly scared of the changes that have taken place in medicine, understandably—it is a period of great change and improvement in many ways—and they worry that they will not be up to standard. It is very important that there is real encouragement and understanding of those fears so that we may bring back more women. In particular where they have other responsibilities, we must ensure that working hours and shifts match their requirements. I think we have long passed the stage where a hospital can say that staff will have to do this, this and this. They must see what women are prepared to give, and work out a sensible compromise.
I should like to make one further point on the question of drugs, not on the issue of whether new expensive drugs are rationed but on whether drugs that are routinely dispensed are to some extent wasted by patients, and whether there is room to reduce that wastage and, therefore, to reduce the cost. I have one small anecdote from a distant relative who was something of a hypochondriac. When she died and a cupboard was opened, there was revealed the most immense number of half-used prescriptions. If she was anything like typical of others, that must have represented a great waste of National Health Service resources. Surely, that is something in our hands with which we should deal.
I see from the clock that my time is up. We have a very distinguished contributor to come next, so I resume my seat.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing this debate. I am also grateful for the offers of salve for the wounds on my back. It is curious to note that most of the offers of salve have come from the Benches on the opposite side of the House.

295
I am going to take the unprecedented step, at least for me, of sticking to a prepared written submission. I am not going to apportion blame to any side. I do not think that there is any point in doing that and it was never my intention when giving the interview to the journalist in the New Statesman. It is inevitable that journalists do perceive slants of a particular kind. But it is true that as a country we have never really faced what it is that we want from our National Health Service. Until that question is asked and answered we cannot begin to address the question about what it should cost, nor how much we are prepared to pay for it. In the latter respect, one of the only comparators that we have comes from other countries.
We repeatedly "talk up" our National Health Service. We keep on saying what an asset it is and how much more excellent it is than those of other countries. There is a growing conviction that these views are harder and harder to sustain.
According to the figures issued by the Government, which are likely to be the most favourable available, our total healthcare expenditure is certainly not excessive by the example of most other civilised countries. It runs at about 6.8 per cent of GDP, of which roughly 5.9 per cent is NHS spending. The rest, as my noble friend. Lord Walton said, is mainly private. Despite the protestations of different governments, this percentage of GDP has actually remained unchanged since 1992, even though costs have increased. The managerial bureaucracy has also increased; for example, in the hospital service it has increased fivefold, which is quite considerable.
How do we compare with other countries? The United States spends the most. Even allowing for its largely privately-funded health service, we see an overall picture of 14 per cent of GDP being spent on healthcare. None the less, US public spending is 6.8 per cent of GDP, which is considerably more than we spend. Indeed, we spend less than nearly every other civilised country, including Germany, Switzerland, France, Canada, Sweden, Holland, Australia and Portugal—all of which spend more than 8 per cent of GDP. We even spend substantially less than the Czech Republic, both in public and in private terms. Of the OECD countries, only Hungary, Poland, Mexico, Turkey and Korea spend less than we do in terms of a proportion of our gross domestic product.
All this may be what the British people want, but it is certainly something that needs proper debate. We have to accept that an increase must imply either increased taxation or some form of insurance scheme, in addition to what currently operates. We cannot stand on our own perception of our record. I believe that we need to study in greater detail, with a good deal more honesty and some humility, what actually goes on in other comparable countries such as Holland and Belgium, which have gone into this in some detail. In this respect, it was extremely encouraging to hear the Prime Minister's commitment to raise our spend to the European average, even though that, in itself, is a slightly vague and difficult area.
296
One of the particular problems is how this spending is distributed. Many of my adverse remarks were made because I come from London. There is no question that London is poorly financed in many ways. We have a poor population in this city and that adds further to NHS costs. Although we have a National Health Service, it is worth pointing out that it is regional in distribution. The spend per capita in England is around £741. That is a substantial sum and it has risen considerably. Incidentally, I should tell my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that the spend in Wales is now around £823 per head, while in Scotland it is £904. Sections of the community in Northern Ireland might complain about the British Government, but we spend almost 30 per cent more there per head than we do in any other part of the United Kingdom; indeed, I believe it is about £1,023.
The problem with this is very clear: much of the driving force behind the NHS is in the academic sector; and it is primarily England that is being starved. It is a real problem. We have the risk of a skewed service and one of the problems is that government action can skew it further.
That brings me to my next point. As I say, the reason for much of our pride in the NHS is its excellence. It is excellent in research; it is excellent in innovation; it has excellent public databases, which lead to better population-based clinical research than that in nearly any other country—except, possibly, Iceland; it has a highly-educated workforce, linked to some of the best higher education in the world; and it is assisted by an industrial base linked to some of the finest industries, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, which is undoubtedly excellent and adds to our international economic competitiveness. This excellence drives it to be capable of providing medical care that is unparalleled in most other countries and a dedicated hard-working workforce which, at its best, is highly respected internationally.
However, there is no questioning the fact that this excellence is under threat. This is not journalistic hyperbole; it is a perception held by virtually every medical academic in this country. The universities are stretched as never before, but the university base is a major reason for our clinical and research excellence. We now have a situation where the Government, not unreasonably, have focused on primary care and on a GP-led service. That has major implications for the real driving force for excellence in the NHS—our secondary and tertiary services. They are what we ourselves, and our elderly relatives, face when the chips are down. That is where we meet the NHS interface, whether it is in casualty or in hospital.
Specialist services are increasingly under pressure and are often working in hospitals where, frankly, the fabric of buildings is shameful, at least in cities like London. Unacceptable waiting in casualty is accepted surprisingly stoically and dirt and crowded bed spaces are far too common. The number of nurses is inadequate and there is fatigue, disillusion and understaffing. Our figures for cancer treatments are among the worst in Europe. We only have to look at the breast cancer services to see, for example, that

297
Northern Ireland, Scotland and England all do worse than almost any other country in Europe. Although we focus on cancer services, they are only one example: they are a paradigm of many of these specialist services.
We have serious problems with nursing recruitment and training. In many ways, Project 2000 was misguided. It was an excellent idea, but it was the wrong way to give nurses status. What we need is caring in the hospitals. We also have problems with medical training. The Calman system has not been an unqualified success. The fragmentation of the NHS into free-standing trusts has led to poor medical manpower control and we are turning out doctors who, frankly, do not have sufficient experience to be entirely safe, particularly in the surgical and anaesthetic fields. That is partly to keep in line with Europe. The training system is a matter of great concern.
Due to the time factor, I shall finish my remarks very shortly. However, I have one final point to make. We keep on saying that we have abolished the internal market. But we cannot say that. It is simply not true. We have not abolished the internal market. Truly we have not. We have replaced it with a different kind of market and a new kind of bureaucracy—the primary care group is now to become the primary care trust. It is a significant problem, which still skews things because it means competition between trusts, which we also claim to have abolished. One only has to look at the situation in West London to see that that is not true.
I have been a little disappointed in the contributions to this important debate from this side of the House. For example, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Harris, it is not fair to say that the NHS needs respect from its professionals. That will resonate very severely in our profession. Noble Lords from the professions who have spoken in today's debate actually have great respect for the NHS. It is out of that respect that we wish to speak.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may point out that I did not say that the NHS needed respect from the professionals; I said that it needed to respect the people who use the service.
Lord Winston: I am sorry, my Lords. I misunderstood.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, during a debate in February last year I drew the attention of the House to a list of community hospitals that were threatened with closure, and that applied especially to the Burford Community Hospital in Oxfordshire. On Monday, telephone calls made to six of the units on that February list resulted in the following responses: Burford, no answer; Winsford in Devon, number not available; Edward Main in Cornwall, number not recognised; Poltair in Cornwall, no answer; Stroud
298
Maternity Unit, still open with closure not expected; Lynton in Devon, now a resource centre with no beds available. Although this Government pledged themselves before the last election not to close hospitals, five out of the six rural cottage hospitals checked out are clearly no longer functioning normally as national health hospitals.
What is the community deprived of when a health authority closes a cottage hospital? It loses local nursing and medical care for the acutely ill; local compassionate care for the terminally ill; local rehabilitation facilities; local half-way house care after specialist treatment at a big acute general hospital; and local respite care.
The meaning of the word "local" varies according to where you are. In central London it probably means a mile and a half; in Oxfordshire it will be more like five to 10 miles. London has the Underground, the bus and taxi services. Unfortunately, most of those affected by rural cottage hospital closures will have to travel considerably further than 10 miles to receive treatment. Burford to Oxford is a round trip of about 50 miles. There is no tube. There is an irregular bus service and taxis whose drivers charge what they think the market will stand. Car ownership, or knowing someone who does not mind giving lifts, is helpful. Anyone from a rural area where the local cottage hospital has closed must surely be prepared for few visitors, at well-spaced intervals, if they have to stay in a far away general hospital.
During the debate in February last year my noble friend Lady Byford drew the attention of the House to some of the other problems facing rural communities. She pointed out that rural counties have more elderly people; for example, they make up around 21 per cent of the population in Devon and 19 per cent in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, compared with an average for England of around 16 per cent. When a cottage hospital is shut in these circumstances the local vulnerable people are indeed badly served. However, it is not only that. What happens to the nurses? Do they travel 50 odd miles a shift to work in the John Radcliffe?
During the debate in February last year the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, told us that the Secretary of State had set up an inquiry into the provision of beds and that early results showed that there were not enough NHS beds. Why have they been further reduced since that date? Records show that occupancy rates have risen from around 70 per cent in the 1970s to over 90 per cent now. No wonder the flu outbreak caused so much difficulty. Mr Milburn described it as an epidemic, but that was with only 192 people having flu per 100,000. A true epidemic has double that number of people having flu per 100,000.
The closure of cottage or community hospitals is a series of double whammies. Patients will have to be transported further for initial treatment, check-ups, further tests, etc. Relations and families will also have to spend more time and money in visiting the sick. The second part of the double whammy is that the general

299
hospital will have to spend more of its resources and use more precious, expensive bed space on sub-acute conditions, respite care and convalescence.
Publicly funded healthcare, free at the point of delivery, has been pledged by all the major parties. In the case of new Labour, however, the point of delivery for those who dwell in the countryside and in more remote areas is certainly less likely to be at the point of need and threatens soon for all practical purposes to vanish from sight.
Like many others, I have recently been appalled to discover that the NHS has funded gay sex material. I take the example of Place West which produced the Gay Sex Now book. I shall not discuss the sordid pictures of this material which promote this lifestyle, but can the Minister say whether it is correct that the underfunded NHS should squander its money on funding such promotional material when lesser sums of money could have saved many of our community hospitals, especially the Burford Community Hospital?
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on initiating this debate. She drew attention to the health service as a whole, as have other noble Lords. I wish to discuss a narrower, but often neglected area; namely, the need for mental health provision. I should declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, whose new work on the outcomes of psychotherapeutic treatment and recent TV series have demonstrated the value of mental health intervention.
One in six of the UK population is likely to experience mental illness of greater or lesser degree—commonly an episode of depression—sometimes no more than the mental equivalent of a bad bout of bronchitis. However, it is not regarded as that by the public or the media, nor by employers. There is a great deal of stigma attached even to healed mental illness. Recruitment panels probe any sizeable gap on CVs with mental breakdown in mind; would-be parents can be refused by adoption agencies if there has been depression in the family; and I know of at least one effective employee who contemplated falsifying a health declaration to omit chronic mental ill health that was perfectly well controlled by medication.
When it is not properly treated, mental illness can have the most serious consequence of all. Of the 6 per cent of the population who suffer from depression, some 15 per cent will commit suicide. Most of the 4,000 suicides in the UK are associated with depression. But, common as it is, incapacitating as it is and treatable as it is, mental health expenditure attracts only just over 16 per cent of the national average budget, and in some health authorities the figure is as low as 11 per cent.
In children the incidence of mental health is also disturbing—about 10 per cent of five to 15 year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales. Some reports say that it is increasing. The need far outweighs the resources. I am sure that we would all want to reduce this cause of
300
acute distress and erosion of the capacity to cope, often at critical times in the school career, including for those traumatised refugee children who have had among the most damaging experiences a child can have.
There are some useful initiatives in this dearth. Will my noble friend the Minister say what he thinks of the development of community child mental health services which aim to increase expertise available to families and to make services more accessible in a way which reduces stigma by using specialists attached to GP surgeries and training all those who work with children? Have these initiatives been evaluated and are they to be replicated?
In conclusion, anyone aware of mental health concerns will know of the grossly disproportionate number of black patients who are confined in secure psychiatric units. It is not clear whether the disproportion happens in causation, in the diagnostic process or for some other reason. However, the existence of this disproportion is deeply disturbing. Can my noble friend say what research is being carried out to find out why so many more of our black fellow citizens are incarcerated in mental hospitals?
6.57 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am well aware of my position in the speaking order and I shall endeavour to break into a trot! First, I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her excellent introduction to the debate.
I want to say something about nurses which I am well aware could have been included in the excellent debate last week initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, but as nurses are the artery—if I may be forgiven the metaphor—of the National Health Service, it is just as appropriate to mention it in this debate. After talking to a nursing director a few days ago, I am prompted to refer once again to Project 2000, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, briefly referred in his excellent and inspiring speech. This is not a political point. I am well aware that Project 2000 was an initiative of the previous government and was very much inspired by the nursing profession. Let us be quite clear of the totally laudable aims of that initiative; namely, to acknowledge the higher standards of education of trainee nurses and to reflect a sophisticated programme of academic training for them. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has given an impressive list of nursing specialties for which a high level of education is required.
The effect on the wards has not been good. Previously, the ward sister could count on, say, five good nurses training in practical nursing who were able to take the load off the trained staff and, at the same time, gain excellent patient experience. Nowadays, trainee nurses under Project 2000 come on the wards for a restricted period. They require closer supervision—which in itself is a vicious circle as there are many fewer trained staff to supervise and to instruct—and they are not so effective with the patients. Who suffers? It is, of course, the patient.

301
Project 2000 has been in operation now for more than 10 years and there is much that it has achieved. What should be addressed now is the question of balance between academic and practical training. I urge the Government to put in hand an early review of Project 2000 to see how this shortcoming can be addressed. In that respect, I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he replied to the debate last week. Certainly the message coming from the senior nursing staff on the wards is a plea for a much greater clinical element in the training of nurses—to the benefit of the patient, to the benefit of clinical administration, and, last but not least, to the benefit of the training of nurses themselves.
I turn now to the recent pay award for nurses. This is wholly welcome. But let us be under no illusion that this award must come out of the NHS purse, in which, as I understand it, there will be no increase. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to this, as did my noble friend Lady Hogg. Can the Minister enlighten us as to what adjustments will be made in the National Health Service budget to reflect this increase?
May I, with an involvement in the private sector, reinforce a plea for greater interface between the private and state sectors, a point made most eloquently by my noble friends Lady Cumberlege and Lord Howe? Admittedly, the use which can be made of the private sector will inevitably be limited in value because of the relative sizes. However, in the case of the independent charity hospital with which I am associated, we have a regular programme of outplacements of student nurses, for the technical training of such people as ECG technicians, and a wholly beneficial mutual arrangement with a major teaching hospital for a regular rotation of housemen, who, in many cases, are studying for membership of one of the Royal Colleges and who provide a quality of RMO of which any hospital, of whatever kind, would indeed be proud.
Relations at hospital and local health authority level between the two sectors are excellent and wholly beneficial. Higher up in the management of the health service, the jury, I suggest, is out. The "them and us" attitude, to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred quite forcefully, is still there—although I am happy to say that it improves by the year. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will do all that they can to foster and encourage this improvement.
The Labour Party has always regarded the National Health Service as its own cause, to the frustration and irritation on many occasions of my party. We have had a number of hagiological speeches from the party opposite on which my noble friend Lady Hogg has poured some statistical cold water, which is very welcome.
However, I finish on a constructive note. This magnificent service requires the intellectual efforts of all of us to see how it can be improved. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has suggested that there is a unique window of opportunity and my noble friends Lord Biffen and Lady Fookes have made some practical
302
suggestions with regard to a Select Committee. I hope that the Government will give them serious consideration.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking in the gap. There was a mix-up as to the debate in which I was listed to speak. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her indulgence and the Whips for their forbearance. I know that I must be very brief.
I should like to make two brief points that have not been alluded to. The first point concerns the contribution that higher education can make to the modernisation of the health service. I declare an interest as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Universities, in partnership with the NHS, now provide virtually all pre-registration education for the nation's doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and all other professions allied to medicine. They are also significant providers of post-graduate training and continuing professional development—CPD—in all the health professions.
We hear regularly—we have heard much today—about the shortages of many of these staff, an inheritance which the Government are now addressing. They have made available funding for an additional 1,000 medical students, the biggest expansion in medical student places for 30 years. A successful recruitment and retention campaign for nurses and midwives last year has raised the profile of those professions. Applications for nursing diploma courses have risen by 18 per cent and for nursing degree courses the increase is even higher at 24 per cent.
Several noble Lords have mentioned pay. Recent evidence suggests that successful recruitment and retention in the health service depends as much on the ability of the NHS to provide staff with continuing professional development opportunities as it does on pay. So the key to recruitment and retention depends on the NHS developing CPD and there is a need to bring the level in all the health professions up to the level of the best.
The Secretary of State for Health has noted that the way the clinical professions train and work together is the key to unlocking the potential of the 21st-century health service. Together, universities and the NHS can ensure that professional preparation of the nation's doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and all the other professions allied to medicine, captures leading-edge practice and prepares healthcare professionals for a fast-changing working environment.
The National Health Service has rightly been set challenging targets for service delivery by the Government. It is essential that there are sufficient healthcare professionals who are educated and trained to high standards and who are fit for the purpose to enable these targets to be met. Quality patient care is at the heart of the Government's strategy for the health service. They are determined to address long-standing deficiencies, and the university/National Health

303
Service partnership is a mechanism for moving forward the modernisation programme to deliver quality patient care.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, on looking at the clock I think that we are, if anything, two or three minutes ahead of schedule, but I will not, I hope, extend my time for that reason.
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on introducing the debate. Her formidable experience and knowledge in this field are beyond dispute. I know that when I first came into this Chamber she was a Minister on the other side. I always thought that I would have to be very careful before I tangled with her because she was—and still is—such an expert.
The noble Baroness asked for a civilised debate and, on the whole—with perhaps one or two exceptions— we have had one. It has certainly been very wide ranging—from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who spoke about mental health problems, to the noble Lord. Lord Rotherwick, who spoke about the problems of services in rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, gave an insight— repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—about the problems of staffing the essential higher education services upon which the training of all our doctors depend. If I may say so, the whole debate was set alight by the passionate and expert speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
January has been a bumper month for "Crisis in the National Health Service" stories. There have always been such stories, of course, but last month seems to have been particularly severe. Whether or not there has been a flu epidemic, let us hope that we have seen the winter crisis peak in terms of the stories that people have been able to write about patients lying on trolleys and similar sad stories.
Individuals have been speaking to me about the kind of healthcare that members of their family have experienced. They have spoken about incidents in hospitals of which I thought I would never hear. They have spoken about dirty wards and, much worse, dirty lavatories, and about rather skimpy and incompetent care. I am referring to the care of a seriously injured patient.
The fact that there is a crisis in winter is not new. As a non-executive director of a National Health Trust hospital until the end of 1997, I was aware that the summer case load was already up to what had been previously considered a winter case load level. The rapid decrease in the number of beds, despite everything that the hospital was able to do in terms of day case treatments, put the hospital under an impossible strain when anything went slightly wrong.
All those factors are underlaid by long term problems, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. The NHS is still in some ways a "national sickness service" rather than a National Health Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, addressed that syndrome in a most interesting speech., as did my noble
304
friend Lord Addington. They both referred to the necessity of preventive care. Other noble Lords referred to low-cost approaches to improving the level of care and to the importance of good examples of care being spread further within the service.
Recent news stories have emphasised the poor equipment available in hospitals. Surely that has something to do with a history of underinvestment. It is not this year's problem, but a long-term problem. The number of beds has been under pressure for years, which has resulted in some of the most extraordinary efficiency rates of which anyone could conceive. It has led to extremely high bed occupancy and turnover of patients—some people believe too high. because of the aftercare problems that may arise—and an inability to cope with the peak and the crisis moments.
Some noble Lords put forward the interesting idea that we must not only take action over the longer-term trends, but also do something about patients' own ability to look after their own healthcare and negotiate their own treatment. If that idea is taken up, it will place new challenges upon the health service, but also possibly new opportunities to ensure that health rather than sickness becomes the preoccupation of at least part of the NHS.
A crisis or acute strains in staffing are features of many stories. They are reflected in the levels of stress and disillusionment expressed by medical staff themselves. Official representatives of doctors have recently been outspoken—I am talking not only of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but of others—about levels of stress and disillusionment and their fears about what is happening in the health service, which is not only their employer but also the service to which they have dedicated their lives. The BMA has decided to conduct a fundamental review of the NHS because, despite record levels of funding and the extra investment currently going in, the system remains overstretched.
The decision—to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred—to pay the recommended full wage increase and to pay it at once rather than in stages is obviously welcome. I am also much struck by and in agreement with the well made point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, about the need to pay people to some extent what the market offers outside. Fewer and fewer people are going into nursing in particular. Surely that has something to do with the level of pay.
There has been much talk of a crisis in funding. Again, there is nothing new in that. The previous government's approach led to a continuous squeezing of performance out of resources which did not keep pace with overall inflation. NHS inflation is higher as a result of new technology. Meanwhile, people's expectations of what the NHS should deliver to them are rising all the time as they become better educated, more well-off and more demanding as consumers. I do not believe that patients like to be called "consumers", but technically one may call them that. They prefer to be thought of as patients and the notion of a patient-doctor rather than a consumer-seller relationship within the health service is important.

305
Many recommendations have been made in the debate as to how the funding crisis—the mismatch of funds to demand—could be solved. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Lord, Lord Bell, produced a variety of approaches. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was erudite in his economist's approach to the way that we should cost and measure inputs and outputs.
The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, was more down-to-earth. He said that we need to be honest and to tell people that extra costs are involved—as did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—and that if they do not want to pay them in one way they will have to pay in another way. The most likely and possibly the best choice is on the whole for the NHS to be funded through taxation. We on these Benches support that policy. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said in his opening remarks, we are still committed to an NHS funded largely by the public purse through the system of taxation. It has been said that taxation is the price we pay for living in a civilised society. Despite the many attacks made on that point of view, I still believe in it.
On the other hand, I see no reason why—as other noble Lords have suggested—we should not make better use of excess capacity in the private sector to solve some of our capacity problems. That would be one way forward. If we could move towards more preventive medicine in the long term it might slow down the rate at which costs increase. I do not believe in solutions such as proceeding with a totally insurance-based system or relying heavily on the PFI, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, sapiently remarked, merely increases costs. Neither of those suggestions would provide long term solutions.
January was a rotten month for the Government. The millennium bug—okay; the Millennium Dome— not so good. There were rumblings from the Robinson case and chaos in the NHS. The situation was not made better by some rather clumsy efforts to control the expressed opinions of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It was capped by the resignation of Mr Kilfoyle from the Government so that he could serve his locality and the Labour Party better. That is an interesting combination of things going wrong. It has nothing to do with international problems. It is, as a former Prime Minister said, "Events, dear boy, events".
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones reminded the Government of our support for some of their major initiatives. I remind the Minister also that my noble friend asked about the whereabouts of the 100 extra intensive-care beds, the national beds inquiry and the Government's response to the Royal Commission on ageing and care for the elderly, which is, of course, another long term problem. I should like to ask the Government a different question. Do they have the honesty and quality of leadership to take the British people into their confidence to explain clearly what the problems are and that they cannot all be solved—just as doctors cannot be educated—in a month or a year or perhaps even in five years, but that the Government
306
will make efforts to solve them? That might have the effect of giving people greater confidence in what is happening in the NHS, so that when minor things do not go right they will understand that the general progress of the NHS is nevertheless going along in the right way.
If the Government show leadership on that issue they will probably be able to take the public with them. If not, they will have more disastrous Januarys.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on enabling so many distinguished and expert Members of your Lordships' House to consider the state of the National Health Service. We on these Benches very much welcome the opportunity and the timing of the debate. The Conservative Party believes passionately in the NHS and our commitment to its future is unequivocal.
This has been a constructive debate. I doubt, though, that the Government will welcome the public spotlight on their recent management, or rather mismanagement, of the NHS. The Government's election manifesto proclaimed in very large letters:
"We will save the NHS".
My noble friend Lady Seccombe told us that the day before the general election the Prime Minister warned the British people:
"You have just 24 hours to save the Health Service".
Many people believed him. Many fewer do now, according to a recent ICM poll in the Observer, as my noble friend Lord Chadlington told us. Why? Because, despite spin doctors seeping into every part of the NHS, and an obsession with manipulating figures, the public knows that the Government are clearly failing to deliver on their healthcare promises. The NHS is in crisis, and the Prime Minister in panic.
His "pledge" for increased public spending on the NHS, announced, inevitably, on television rather than in the House of Commons, has subsequently become merely an "aspiration" and then, in a matter of days, only a "conditional commitment". Moreover, this is a "conditional commitment" that is untested, uncosted and unrealistic. A Whitehall aide apparently told The Times:
"Of course Tony wasn't meant to say it. He can't make huge financial commitments like that".
Can the Minister, therefore, spell out clearly for the House what the Prime Minister's "conditional commitment" means? Are extra resources entirely dependent on the future health of the economy? Are they to be funded through tax rises, or is the money to come from other departments?
These are important questions and I hope that the Minister will answer them when he winds up. I shall look forward to his reply. I certainly associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege about the Minister personally.
I turn now to one of the Government's five key election pledges: NHS waiting lists. Labour's manifesto promised to take 100,000 people off the

307
waiting lists. The reality, as everyone knows, from NHS staff to the general public, is completely different. My noble friend Lord Bell told us that for every one of Mr Blair's first 1,000 days, an extra 264 people have joined the waiting list to see a hospital consultant. Clinical priorities have been replaced by political ones. Decision-making is being taken away from doctors and hospitals and centralised in Whitehall to help the Government's re-election programme rather than to improve patient care. There is now a considerable backlog of complex surgical procedures, which have been postponed to rush through straightforward ones. The sickest patients are waiting longer. This is currently a dangerous country in which to fall seriously ill. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made that point very well.
I should very much like to pay tribute to the valiant efforts of all NHS staff during this winter's flu outbreak. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, questioned whether it really was an epidemic. Although the number of reported flu cases fell well short of an official epidemic—with the system haemorrhaging all round—the spin doctors decided to put their own interpretation on the statistics. I do wish that the Government would concentrate on real doctors rather than spin doctors.
Why was the immunisation programme so limited? Only 30 per cent of the "at-risk" groups received anti-flu jabs, compared to 75 per cent in France, where the mortality rate has been far lower. Why, particularly, were vulnerable groups and hospital staff not immunised? Large numbers of the most vulnerable people caught flu from those caring for them. Why was there no publicity campaign urging people to get their jab? Perhaps the Minister will outline what immunisation programme the Government will put in place for this coming winter?
The Conservative Party believes that it is now time to put patients before politics. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said, we are the world's fifth largest economy, yet we suffer second-rate standards in many casualty departments and a scandalous lottery of care for life-threatening diseases. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman referred to last week's very interesting debate on nursing, in which we heard of a shortage of 17,000 nurses. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Howe, I have a sister who is a trained nurse. She is married to a consultant surgeon who runs a vital department in a provincial teaching hospital. He sees it as a matter of professional pride to keep the service running. But the spring has now been stretched beyond its elastic limit.
The current crisis must be a turning point. The truth is that, as a direct result of government policy, the system is unable to cope, at times, with the demand for basic services. The failure to tackle structural reform of the NHS means that real people suffer as the Government stand by preparing the next excuse. Given the continuous advances in expensive medical science, the need for substantial future wage rises to retain trained staff and an ageing population, the refusal to admit that the current system needs to change shows an alarming lack of realism.
308
The Government's old-fashioned, dogmatic, socialist objection to working with the independent health sector is every bit as damaging to the nation's physical health as was Clause 4 to the nation's economic health. The ability of people in Britain to afford private medical insurance makes a greater difference to their standard of healthcare than is the case in other health systems in Europe. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, other socialist governments in Europe see private medical insurance as a supplement to state spending. We can surely learn from other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. I agree that the noble Lord set the debate alight. We need to encourage both individuals and firms to utilise the resources of the private sector as well as the NHS. Currently, this Government actually penalise, through the tax system, those who seek to alleviate the burdens on the NHS by using private healthcare.
It is for all these reasons that we have invited the Government to begin a meaningful dialogue on the future of the National Health Service—a request that has fallen, so far, on deaf ears. The Government show no enthusiasm for radical thinking.
The Conservative Party sees the NHS as the mainstay of healthcare provision when we return to government. We will increase its funding in real terms, and we will put clinical priorities back—where they belong—above political ones.
We on these Benches urge the Government to make a fresh start and introduce an uncharacteristic level of honesty into the debate on the NHS. We believe that to ignore the present situation and the challenges it presents is a betrayal of this country's future. We urge the Prime Minister to show real courage and leadership and to do the same.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her initiative in securing it. She brings to this House enormous experience of the NHS. Working with her in the past was a great pleasure for me. I am glad to be able to debate with the noble Baroness once again these important issues relating to the future of our National Health Service. I also acknowledge the contribution made by so many noble Lords to our discussions about the state of the NHS. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that I welcome the spotlight being placed on the NHS and on the Government's stewardship of it.
At the heart of the debate is the sustainability of the National Health Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has returned to a theme that she developed in a debate on the NHS in this House a year ago. She, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and others have posed questions about the ability of the NHS to continue to provide an all-embracing service, faced as it is with so many new pressures, given the pace of medical science and technological advances and as the genetic revolution comes upon us.

309
The answer must be in the affirmative. I want to make the Government's commitment to the NHS and the case for the sustainability of a tax-funded system available on the basis of need alone.
There is a terrible danger in over-emphasising the problems that the service faces. That is not a political point; it is one to which I held when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was a Minister. We are sometimes in danger of talking up the problems of the National Health Service and talking down its successes. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, on that point. Also, I warmed to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she described her experiences and those of her family at the hands of the NHS.
The NHS has served the nation well for 50 years. I believe that it will continue to serve us well. Of course, the siren voices warning us that the NHS is not sustainable are not new. We have heard them over almost every decade since the NHS came into existence. Experience has shown that the NHS has faced up to the new challenges placed upon it year after year.
Of course, the changes faced by the NHS in the last century will be nothing as compared with the challenges that it will face in this century. Just as society has changed over 50 years and people have come to expect 24-hour access to personalised services, so the NHS will have to change again. And just as we want to modernise the nation as a whole, so too we need to modernise the health service to play its part in creating an enterprise economy and a fair society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about problems. I do not pretend that the NHS does not have its challenges and problems. Nor do I deny that many noble Lords have raised important issues, with which I shall attempt to deal. But first, perhaps I may turn to my noble friend Lord Winston. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak about the National Health Service.
I say to my noble friend that we have abolished the crude internal market and the absurd notion that there should be crude competition between hospitals and between doctors and nurses. We have replaced the internal market with a partnership approach. I say to my noble friends that it is right that primary care groups should play a key role in that. I make no apology to the House for that important role. Their input is crucial. But it is not an isolated input. It is informed by national priorities. It is aided by the whole process of developing health improvement programmes at local level, pulling primary care groups into the discussions with health authorities, providers and local authorities, and the development of long-term agreements rather than short-term contracts. That is surely the best way to make judgments about the best treatments to be offered to patients. All that must be underpinned by close dialogue between general practitioners and consultants.
310
It is early days for primary care groups. However, one of the most pleasing indications of how they will succeed has been the development of the closest dialogue that has been known between GPs and consultants in the lifetime of the National Health Service. But, of course, we must build on that. I accept that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord Winston expressed concerns that there are challenges for specialised services. I can tell my noble friend and the noble Earl that we have instructed regional officers to identify those trusts and services which have previously relied on extra-contractual referral income in order to fund some specialised services activity and make sure that arrangements are in place so that services will not be destabilised.
We are still in the middle of a developmental year in terms of Commissioning those services. However, we are satisfied that there is good evidence that health authorities and the regional specialised Commissioning groups are getting to grips with what needs to be done. I can assure my noble friend that we shall keep a very close watch on the process. I shall always be willing to discuss with my noble friend any problems that he identifies in that area.
I now turn to some of the other issues raised. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, concerning mixed-sex wards. The Government are committed to their removal over the next few years, with most being removed by the end of 2002. I know that other Members of this House are keen for us to do that.
I accept the points raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the wisdom she offered in encouraging the public to make the most appropriate use of the services that we offer. That is very much underpinned by the information that we can provide to the public, and which we want to provide, about the range of treatments on offer and the challenges and pressures that the service faces.
I warmed to the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for exercise and sport and the improvements that they can make to the nation's health. The noble Lord leads by example. Once again, in March, he will lead us all in the BT Swimathon charity event, in which many noble Lords enjoy taking part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was right to raise the issue of dentistry. There are problems in some parts of the country as regards people gaining access to NHS dental services. We have launched a number of new initiatives, including "phone and go" access centres, and we shall shortly be publishing a new dental strategy designed to deal with many of those problems. I agree with the noble Baroness also about the problems of waste in the use and prescribing of medicines. We are keen to encourage improvements in the way in which medicines are used and see that they are not wasted.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker raised the important issue of mental illness. My noble friend will know that our national service framework was designed to ensure that we improved the status and

311
provision of mental health services. We have provided £700 million of extra investment over a three-year programme. We also recognise the need to give priority to child and adolescent mental health services.
As to immunisation, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that we shall carefully monitor what happens this winter. Both the Chief Medical Officer and the Joint Committee on Immunisation will produce recommendations on the policy to be adopted next year.
Listening to this debate, noble Lords will recognise that the NHS has been under real pressure over the past few weeks. Sadly, some patients have not received the treatment that they deserve. It is also right to record that, thanks to the dedication and hard work of NHS staff both in recent weeks and throughout months of careful planning, including contributions from local authority social services departments, the NHS has coped well with very real extra demands and pressures. This is rot the story that we have read in the newspapers or heard from the myriad of commentators who have used these winter pressures as an excuse to denigrate the National Health Service. I very much agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord MacKenzie. The Herculean efforts on the part of NHS staff have had ill reward from those sections of the media who seem determined to undermine them and declare that the NHS has passed its sell-by date.
What is the reality? The Government have spent the past two years laying the foundations for modernisation, abolishing the internal market and starting the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. Of the 37 new hospitals that have been given the go-ahead, 31 are based on public/private partnership. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, we recognise the benefits of working with the private sector, particularly in the area of new developments such as the hospital modernisation programme.
We have also modernised casualty services so that every department that needs capital investment receives it. We are getting more doctors and nurses back into the NHS. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would have acknowledged those efforts and the decision of the Government to increase the number of medical training places and develop three new centres of medical education. We have increased the number of nurses, not just those who have returned or are about to return, and the number of training places. Our efforts have also led to an encouraging increase in the number of young people who apply to become student nurses. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, drew attention to the necessary changes to be made to the nurse education curriculum. I accept the need to ensure that, alongside academic training, there is greater emphasis on practical training, and the debate which your Lordships had last week on this matter was very illuminating and informative.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, warned us about the dangers of putting too much faith in structural change. Having lived through many
312
structural changes in the NHS which the previous government initiated, I can only echo that warning. However, our emphasis is not on structural change for its own sake but on improvements in services. and in that we have the great support of our staff. Government and Ministers have a major role to play in developing the strategy under which the NHS should operate.
It is naïve to believe that the funding and overall strategic direction of our great National Health Service can ever be disengaged from the parliamentary process, but within the setting of a national service, with Ministers setting national priorities, there is considerable room for local NHS organisations to grow, develop and take ownership of the policies that they wish to see brought into play. Primary care groups and trusts are the visible indication of our wish to delegate decision-making to the level nearest the patient.
We are making improvements to the National Health Service. As an example, NHS Direct is part of the process of modernisation. That is a wholly new service which provides easy access to professional advice over the telephone or on the Net. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies emphasised, this is the kind of innovation that we are introducing to the health service. The service is very popular with patients; over 1 million calls have been received. In answer to my noble friend Lord Rea, the University of Sheffield has undertaken an assessment of NHS Direct and found that 97 per cent of callers are satisfied with the service received. It is important that primary care has links with NHS Direct. We have set up a primary care interface group which enables us to bring representatives of primary care together with those who run NHS Direct to talk about how the service can be developed and improved.
Step by step we shall build a faster service, but it will take 10 years to modernise the NHS, not least to train and recruit the extra doctors and nurses we need. As my noble friend Lord Davies reminded us, we are on target to hit our manifesto pledge to get waiting lists down by 100,000, but that was always just the start. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, we are determined to act on outpatient waiting lists and will treat one third of a million more outpatients this year.
We want to modernise all aspects of treatment in the NHS. Our next step is to modernise the services which deal with the biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as mental health. We are providing more money to give suspected cancer patients faster treatment and provide more operations for cardiac patients. While this brings about a revolution in hospital care, to complete it we must ensure that hospital services are fully integrated with the rest of the care system.
It may be that, given all the changes that have taken place in the NHS over the past decade, many hospital clinicians have felt rather left out. We must harness more effectively the enormous contribution that hospital doctors in particular make to patient care. That must take place in the context of a modern

313
healthcare system which moves away from the management of single health institutions and towards a concept where there is management of the clinical conditions that span the component NHS services from which patients receive care. That calls for an intermediate level which is fully networked into local hospital, community and primary care services.
I was interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. Over the past few weeks hospitals have been full of very elderly people with severe respiratory illness. Demographic trends suggest that those pressures will not change. What must change is how we deliver those services. For example, it is self-evident that we need more critical care beds. It is perhaps less evident, but no less true, that we need wholesale modernisation of the care process. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that is one of the fundamental findings of the national beds inquiry which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to publish later this month. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not here to glean that information. The inquiry shows that in comparison with a number of other European countries the NHS is a relatively efficient user of beds with comparatively low bed numbers.
The inquiry reveals, however, that there is a wide variation in hospital bed usage between health authorities in the NHS. Interestingly, it has not shown any simple link between the number of acute beds, the management of emergencies and elective waiting times. All this points to the fact that we need to take a whole-system approach to our services. That approach, under any scenario, will require an increase in the number of beds in the system. I believe that the trend of a reduction in hospital beds over the past decade or more cannot keep pace with changing demography, additional activity and the new services that we envisage for the NHS. More on that later.
This is just the beginning. We want the whole patient experience to be transformed. Our vision is of an NHS where services are shaped around the convenience of patients, and—my noble friend Lord Harris was right—where decisions are shared between clinicians and patients.
That means embracing technology to provide faster services. It means direct booking of hospital appointments, shorter waiting times for treatment, more rehabilitation services, greater use of telemedicines, the Internet and NHS Direct to bring care closer to home. We have made a start on this vision. Now we are upping the pace of modernisation.
A number of noble Lords raised the point about what has often been described as the lottery of care, and the unacceptable variations in access to care from health authority to health authority. We are determined to end that lottery. For the first time in the history of the NHS we are setting clear national standards, through national service frameworks and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The work of NICE is not about rationing but about
314
ensuring that the treatments provided in the NHS are the most effective. The work of NICE will enable us to speed up the introduction of such treatments in the future.
For the first time we are inspecting all parts of the health service, through the Commission for Health Improvement, to ensure that patients obtain the top class care they deserve. Of course—and I turn to my noble friend Lord Winston—the NHS modernisation programme needs cash. So when we look to NHS resources over the past few years it is interesting that many commentators said that the NHS needed 3 per cent growth a year to keep pace with demographic and technology changes. I say this to my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Walton. In the three years of the current Comprehensive Spending Review we have given more than that: an average of 4.9 per cent a year over the CSR period. We know that the NHS needs sustained investment. That is what it will receive. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Ashton has testified, that extra money is being received by health authorities, enabling them to spend more money on developments in services. It is tempting to bandy figures with the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. I suspect that we would not get far.
I turn to the more fundamental issues relating to future funding of the health service. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, called for a health Select Committee. He drew attention to the various funding options on offer. Indeed, today we have heard several of those options. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, proposed a health insurance premium—essentially, I guess, a hypothecated tax. I am not convinced. Inevitably, it reduces government flexibility over public finances. I think that it is potentially more regressive.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords may say "Oh", but given the size of the budget for the NHS, and the proportion which relates to public finance as a whole, it is inevitable that government have to take decisions on funding which give them flexibility over the whole public finance field.
If we are talking of the hypothecation of the entire NHS budget, that inevitably makes the service more susceptible to economic downturn than the current financial arrangements. I agree with the noble Baroness when she said that undiluted private health insurance is not the answer. I had hoped that today's debate might have flushed out what Dr Liam Fox meant in his article in the Daily Telegraph today. He talks about encouraging greater use of private healthcare and wants incentives to be given to individuals and firms to use the private sector. What is difficult to work out is how one relates that to the other initiatives which the Opposition have announced—the patient guarantee and the tax guarantee. The question is whether he suggests that private health insurance is a way forward when the patients who would be forced

315
to pay private health insurance under the patient guarantee and the tax guarantee are precisely those who can least afford to do so.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, while we are flushing out ideas, the Minister has spoken for 24 minutes but has not mentioned the Prime Minister's new commitment. Can he give us the authorised version?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I did not think that I needed to comment on it because I thought what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said was clear.
We have already increased spending around 5 per cent growth in real terms over this year and the next. By the end of the next health spending round, as a proportion of GDP the figure will be around 7 per cent. The Prime Minister made clear that we shall find the funds and are confident that we can sustain an increase in funding that allows us to match the EU average. Of course, detailed decisions on the additional moneys to be made available will be taken in the current spending review which will set spending plans up to the year 2003–2004. Growth in the NHS spend depends on the economy, our sound management of it, and ability to pay.
My noble friend Lord Davies put his finger on the point as regards private health insurance. The very people who need most care are those who are most at risk of ill health and they are the people least able to obtain it. The second reason that private health insurance is the wrong answer is that if one were to do as Dr Fox appears to suggest—to provide tax relief or subsidies to those private health insurances—one is diverting hundreds of millions of pounds which should be spent on the NHS into a huge cash hand-out in tax reliefs and subsidies. Not only would one reduce support for the NHS, and from those with private health insurance, undoubtedly one would risk a two-tier system. The NHS would be left as a safety net service for the poor. Experience in the US and Australia also suggests that tax incentives to encourage private healthcare will fuel the spiralling costs of insurance premiums.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, considered social insurance a better runner. Having been in your Lordships' House for a little more than two years, it is probably the first time that I have heard noble Lords opposite look to France and Germany for inspiration. Germany's social insurance system is a heavy cost on employers. For instance, German employers have to pay about 7 per cent on top of the cost of each worker's salary for healthcare. In France, employers have to pay about 12 per cent on top of each worker's gross wage for health social insurance. We should be wary about going down that route. In many cases, it could have a negative impact on our economy and the competitiveness of our businesses. I do not think that we should go down those routes.
We should put our emphasis on the modernisation of the National Health Service. We should reject the idea that the NHS should shrink to cover emergencies
316
only and give up on elective care such as hip replacements, hernias or cataracts. We should also reject the idea that the NHS should be reduced to a safety net service for the poor and marginalised. Improvements in healthcare will come through the National Health Service. It is only the NHS which combines efficiency with fairness, providing care on the basis of need and not ability to pay.
When the Second Reading of the NHS Bill which set up the NHS was debated in this Chamber, although in another place, Aneurin Bevan promised that it would lift the shadow of fear of the financial consequences of illness from millions of people. He promised that it would relieve suffering, provide a higher standard of practice from the medical profession and make a great contribution to the welt-being of the people of this country.
He was right then, and we are right now to take that Bevanite vision forward: to modernise the NHS to make it fit for the 21st century; and to fulfil our commitment to the people of this country.
8 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, during 10 years in your Lordships' House I have learnt that the way to win gratitude is to bring these five-hour debates to a brisk conclusion. I shall be brief, but I want to make one comment. I am not surprised and have been enormously encouraged by the intellectual range, expertise, innovative suggestions and practical experience that your Lordships have shared with us tonight. It has not been a trivial bang-about. I have sensed that people have been listening. There has been a real search to analyse what is wrong with the NHS and to find new and better ways to rejuvenate it.
I thank the Minister for his masterly and careful summing up, but I am not sure that he picked up all the nuances that were put forward in the suggestions. I know the pressure on ministerial life and that there is a great temptation to say, "Phew, that's another night over". However, I hope that he will read Hansard carefully and try to tease out some of the suggestions that were made. There is a huge feeling of consensus in the Chamber tonight. We are willing the NHS to succeed, but we feel that it is a time of crisis and that there must be some new thinking.
I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate and I beg to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Defence Medical Services
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Defence Medical Services are able to provide appropriate healthcare for the Armed Forces now and in the event of future conflict.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a good medical care system is essential for the morale and physical well-being of the Armed Forces. They are prepared to

317
risk life and health and suffer separation from their families. They deserve to know that they can rely on the best possible healthcare.
In recent years, they have proved again and again that they are willing to make these sacrifices: in Northern Ireland; in the Gulf and Falkland wars; in Bosnia and in Kosovo. But the current state of the DMS can be seen as a betrayal of their trust. As we have this debate tonight, I believe that France is opening its 15th military hospital, while we are closing our last. Admiral Brigstocke's paper, reported in The Times on 24th January, stated:
"I learned on Friday that the £1.5 million which the Surgeon-General's Department had ear-marked for use across the three services had to be taken as an in-year savings measure. There are soldiers and sailors whose careers are being held back, and in some cases who are being invalided out of the Navy because they cannot get treatment".
I am therefore grateful to have the opportunity to put on record some of the problems besetting the DMS. And I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who will be speaking tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the crisis in the DMS, which may soon become a catastrophe, is being addressed urgently and effectively. And I hope that this reassurance will be conveyed to the men and women in the DMS and their families in order to raise morale, to stem the haemorrhage of personnel and to begin a resuscitation process before it is too late and we are carrying out a post-mortem.
The issues include problems of retention of senior staff who cannot quickly be replaced by the current recruitment drive, and closure of facilities which cannot quickly be reopened in the event of an influx of casualties. Closure of military hospitals and transfer to an already overburdened NHS means that military personnel cannot receive the treatment they need when they need it. Career opportunities for medical, nursing and paramedical personnel are severely truncated, adversely affecting morale and commitment. Premature voluntary retirements (PVRs) result, with a backlash on those still in service, who find themselves working for longer hours than civilian counterparts, often for lower salaries. Their loyalty is being tested beyond endurance and many more are contemplating leaving. The downward spiral is continuing with disastrous consequences.
Perhaps I may give a few examples. First, RH Haslar, the UK's only remaining military hospital, has been scheduled for closure. A stay of execution has been granted, but staff know that they are on death row and the implications for morale are obvious. Also, soon after the new intensive care unit at Haslar was opened at great cost and with great pride, the decision was made to transfer it to Queen Alexandra Hospital.
Is that coherent planning? If it were appropriate to have an ICU for the DMS at Haslar, why the change so soon afterwards? If it was not appropriate, why the massive expenditure and triumphalist opening? Little has changed by way of demographic trends or service needs. The reversal of policy represents a gross waste of money for the taxpayers and a confusion of policy extremely detrimental for DMS personnel.
My second example refers to the costly transfer of the Royal Defence Medical College from the well-established and easily accessible centre in Millbank to Gosport. Now another relocation, this time to Birmingham, is being mooted, costing some £140 million. These apparently ill-thought-out moves conjure up a bizarre picture of a kind of Walt Disney procession of DMS personnel marching from London to Gosport and then turning round and marching off to Birmingham, except that the numbers in the procession are dwindling and morale is much lower than in the real Disneyland.
The third issue concerns transfer of DMS facilities and staff to an NHS which is already overburdened and unable to cope with crises such as the recent flu epidemic, even in peace time. Civilian patients with malignant disease have had operations postponed, with life-threatening consequences. How can such an overburdened NHS cope with an influx of military casualties? Last August, I asked a Question on staff shortages at the QA Hospital, about to take over intensive care facilities from Haslar. The Minister's reply detailed some of the staffing problems already besetting the hospital. This is the overburdened NHS into which our DMS are being transferred while, as I already mentioned, France is opening a brand new military hospital—its 15th.
Have any other NATO countries closed all their military hospitals and are relying entirely on civilian hospitals? Furthermore, what has happened to other military hospitals, such as the RAF hospital at Wroughton? It had been a splendid state-of-the-art hospital. It has been closed and become derelict. With no air conditioning, high-tech operating theatres are contaminated with fungus and mould. The Government are talking about building an array of new hospitals. Why not use those already built, which have already cost a great deal of money and which are now going to waste?
The fourth issue relates to pay and conditions of service. I shall deal first with pay. Although basic salaries are broadly comparable to civilian counterparts, those for senior personnel, such as qualified GPs and consultants, do not take into account opportunities in civilian practice to earn additional NHS fees and/or to earn from private practice. While new merit awards are welcome, they benefit only a few. And the much-heralded 1999 pay award is, after tax, only 0.6 per cent higher than the NHS pay award. It is hard for military personnel to resist the temptation to take PVR. This temptation is increased by seeing colleagues of comparable age in civilian practice having a much better quality of life. Overstretch in the DMS often results in long hours on duty, perhaps working one in two nights and weekends, with separation from families and stress for all concerned.
These problems are compounded by truncated career prospects. Last summer, I asked the Government how promotion rates for medical officers in the Royal Navy compared with those for regular officers. The Minister's reply confirmed the average

319
length of time for promotion from commander to captain for nor-medical personnel is 6.7 years, compared with 11.3 years for medical officers.
The Government have offered moderately enhanced salaries to compensate for relatively slow promotion. This misses the point. Your Lordships will be aware of the significance or rank in service life and a little more salary is not compensation for delay in recognition of service and equality of status with peers. Also, delay in promotion has ad verse effects on pensions.
It is no wonder that there has been a mass exodus from the DMS. Dr Ferguson, Chairman of the BMA's Armed Forces Committee, stated:
"It is particularly disturbing that figures for some hospital specialties most critical for the DMS's ability to support service operations (anaesthetics, orthopaedic surgery, burns and plastic surgery, accident and emergency medicine) are more than 50 per cent below requirements".
Perhaps I may ask the Minister, by way of example, how many RAF consultant physicians and how many uniformed Royal Navy consultant orthopaedic surgeons are now in post, compared with the numbers who should be in post according to a full complement? Secondly, are reports true that our DMS capability is so inadequate that the UK could not have mounted a land campaign in Kosovo, if we had wished to do so, because there are only enough DMS staff for 1.5 field hospitals and such a campaign would have required 5 to 7 hospitals? Also the deployment would have caused even further reductions in already overstretched DMS facilities in the UK, such as naval bases and air stations, which must still continue to operate.
No amount of recruitment of young medical personnel can fill the vacuum created by the loss of experienced clinicians in the provision of patient care or in the training of junior colleagues. I suspect that we may hear from the Minister glowing accounts of the proposed new centre for defence medicine. This prestigious centre may serve a useful role as a centre of excellence. However, it cannot solve the grave and diverse problems besetting a DMS now verging on catastrophe.
One positive suggestion has been made by leading representatives of the medical profession such as Dame Turner Warwick, who have proposed the establishment of an inter-collegiate faculty of defence medicine to complement the proposed centre. Such a faculty, with tripartite representation of the MoD, the Department of Health and the medical and nursing professions, could be a valuable resource for addressing current crises and longer term policies.
As I conclude, I am sorry to have been so negative. However, many Members of your Lordships' House have been expressing grave concerns over the problems of the DMS for a long time. Successive governments have failed to address those concerns. Now time is running out. DCS 15 has been predictably disastrous. Perhaps I may ask the Minister who has been or should be called to account for such gross errors of judgment.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government propose to stem the flow of medical personnel, restore the morale of those who have not
320
yet left, rebuild infrastructure and replenish facilities to recreate a DMS worthy of our Armed Forces. We proudly and rightly believe that they are the best in the world and as such they deserve the best medical services in the world. These they certainly do not now have. That is a challenge. For the sake of the nation, I hope that the Government will be able to rise to it.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given the House to debate the Defence Medical Services. I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her trenchant remarks and many probing questions.
Last spring, I had indications that there could be a considerable number of servicemen and women who were not available for duties due to delays in being seen by consultants and receiving treatment. In four Questions for Written Answer tabled last May, I sought information on the number of personnel of each of the three services who were unfit for duty, who were waiting for secondary care medical treatment, and what percentage of personnel who required medical care in the NHS were having to be treated in turn with non-service patients. The answers I received, some weeks later, were that the Ministry of Defence did not maintain central records of the number of service personnel who were unfit for duty while awaiting secondary care medical treatment; a surprising admission when the shortage of service manpower is already so acute.
I was informed that all service personnel requiring secondary medical care in a National Health Service hospital were placed on the hospital consultant's waiting list and were then treated in turn with other NHS patients on the basis of clinical need. This is a very disturbing attitude from the point of view of the Armed Forces. I Learned that there are financial incentives in Ministry of Defence contracts with NHS trusts to encourage a trust to meet critical operational priority targets set by the Defence Secondary Care Agency; but there does not seem to be any way that the Armed Forces can be guaranteed universal fast-track medical treatment within the NHS. The attitude seems to be that service personnel must be treated along with civilian patients on an equal footing.
I do not think that any of this is satisfactory for the services. My view seems to be reinforced by the remarks attributed in recent newspaper articles to Admiral Brigstocke, a recently retired Second Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Personnel. Regardless of the precise accuracy of the figures which the admiral mentioned—these will change from day to day—his fundamental point was that the Defence Medical Services were in a parlous state. Relying on the National Health Service was not proving to be a satisfactory solution.
Service training is not cheap. When it comes to fast jet aircrew, the costs to reach front-line requirements are today measured in millions of pounds. The effective operational flying life of the fully trained airman or woman is completed in perhaps three or

321
four tours. Other individuals will have specialist skills of which the services are critically short. The loss of availability of aircrew and key specialists can seriously affect the operational readiness of front-line units or lead to the overcommitment of others. It has often been said that medical support should be treated as an element of front-line capability because of its direct contribution to the health and availability of front-line personnel. It wants to be readily at hand and fully resourced.
I believe that the run-down of the Defence Medical Services over a very long period of years has now reached a point where much more drastic measures are called for; measures which need not be expensive and which could even yield savings to the defence budget. If personnel "waiting time" for treatment could be cut back to days rather than remain at weeks, months or even years, there would be considerable increases in operational availability. That would be very welcome given that recently the commitments of the Armed Forces have been so high. Furthermore, there could be a saving in defence resources. Indeed, part of this saving could be directed to treatment of service personnel in the private health sector.
As Chairman of Council for the King Edward VII's Hospital for Officers (Sister Agnes'), which has had a close association with the Armed Forces over the past 100 years, I can assure your Lordships that we have all the necessary facilities required to get individuals back speedily to fully effective duty. The same can, of course, be said for many other hospitals in the private sector. I hope that the Government will not dismiss such a solution on grounds of principled objection to the use of the private health sector. Indeed, it could help to alleviate some of the overloading on National Health Service facilities to the overall benefit of the community.
Have the Government taken a long, hard look at the overall cost-effectiveness of the Ministry of Defence turning to the private healthcare sector to speed up the treatment and return to duty of our very valuable front-line aircrew and other key personnel? I hope that we shall learn tonight that this approach, if it is not already in place, will be studied and adopted. It cannot be resolved by the Ministry of Defence alone. This has to be tackled on a broader front by the Government. Surely this problem is an excellent candidate for a positive demonstration of joined-up government.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Strategic Defence Review was published in July 1998, over 19 months ago. By then it was well known that thanks to the monstrous depredation of Front Line First, the Defence Medical Services were collapsing. In the SDR debate of 8th July 1998, the Minister rightly referred to the, "hollowed out" and "demoralised Defence Medical Services", and pledged to make new money and personnel available to "revitalise them". He promised a great many things. One of those was that 200 specialists and other medical staff would be
322
recruited to the Defence Medical Services "within about three years". He expected to be spending an "additional £40 million a year" on those services.
When I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in the debate on the Queen's Speech last November—17 months later—where were the hospital ships, one promised as a matter of urgency, I received a written reply which, while both full and helpful in responding to the issues I had raised, said that the MoD specification for the vessels was currently being developed and was expected to be completed early this year; namely, in 2000. The requirement would then be passed to the Defence Procurement Agency, where an implementation scheme had already been formed. The in-service date remained April 2005. Therefore, a project described as a matter of urgency in 1998 is expected to take seven years. Is it so high-tech that the MoD needs seven years to test all the equipment; or could it be that either the Defence Medical Services have been told that there is no money for the project or that it has been put on hold more or less indefinitely?
The Government must recognise that, like housing and education, access to good medical care for the Armed Forces now serving out of the UK in large numbers is a basic requirement. Recently we have committed ourselves to further UN operations anywhere, any time. What use then will there be in blueprints for a hospital ship? That is one of the easier things that have been promised.
Some good things have been achieved, although I fear that they are quite small. The Defence Secondary Care Agency is now headed by a serving officer, who understands the needs of the forces. That is a great advance. At Frimley MDHU, although there is still no mess and virtually no opportunity for the tri-service staff to work in a military environment, plans at least are inching forward for a fitness centre and the upgrading of some of the living quarters.
However, there are two major threats to the survival of the Defence Medical Services: the desperate and continuing shortage of doctors and nurses. To no one's surprise, the latter are defecting to the NHS. After all, they are obliged to do a great deal of NHS work, but without the overtime that the NHS nurses receive. All too often the patients for whom they care are NHS patients, including geriatrics, and they work in conditions very far from the military environment with its opportunities for adventure training, travel and other challenges for which they joined. Retention can scarcely be helped by the fact that, unless things have changed, the review of nurses' pay by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is not due to report until 2002. By that time, the outcome of the review may be largely academic as far as the nurses are concerned.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how many nurses, consultants and other medical personnel respectively asked for premature voluntary retirement in the years 1998–2000. Last year the Defence Committee was told that five consultants who served at Haslar had asked for PVR on hearing that Haslar was to close. On that occasion the British Medical Association quoted a Ministry of Defence statement of

323
25th March 1999 that there were then 265 fewer consultants than there were posts to be filled. What is the present shortfall? What serious incentives to join or to stay are being offered? Has the pensions issue been more flexibly resolved?
I turn briefly to the future of Haslar, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has already dealt with in considerable detail. However, it is worth repeating some of the issues. In 1998–99 the annual operating cost of Haslar was £49 million. The net saving to the defence budget from the closure of Haslar was expected to be £14 million per annum after allowing for the creation of a centre for defence medicine and a new MDHU at Portsmouth. That is a paltry sum. Incidentally, I should like to know how much it would cost per annum to run a comparable NHS hospital.
The centre of defence medicine was to consist of one ward and four consultants. However, as well as being a centre of expertise, it was thought that it might be a reception unit for patients who were aero-medically evacuated to the UK in peacetime. Like the MDHUs, it would, of course, be associated with an NHS institution. There Fore, no doubt its beds also would be open to pre-emption by the NHS. We need to know from the Minister, as do the service families who increasingly are anxious about the proposed closure, what provision has been made in all those plans for the repatriation and accommodation of families from abroad? Provision for that exists at Haslar, but there is no such provision at the MDHUs and, presumably, none at the centre.
The BMA has expressed considerable concern that the closure at Haslar will, in its view, seriously damage the Defence Medical Services' ability to train doctors, particularly for operational military medicine. It is scandalous that, as reported recently, young men in the Navy have not been able to receive the orthopaedic and other treatment which they need to allow them to return to service, and that the effectiveness of that service has been reduced correspondingly. Moreover, a surgeon in an MDHU attempted to clear six beds for much-needed orthopaedic operations but had to cancel them because the NHS wanted and took the beds. Are we not allowing the NHS tail to wag the MDHU dog for, I am sorry to say, largely financial reasons? Surely the DMS exist in peacetime primarily to enable the injured to be returned to fitness and to their service duties promptly? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig made the point that that, curiously enough, would save money.
Does the MoD really want to add yet one more anxiety for service families by closing Haslar, without which there is no planned provision for family repatriation? In the very useful letter, which I have already quoted, the Minister told me that Haslar will not close until the MDHU at the Queen Alexandra Hospital is ready. That was not expected "for several years". Meanwhile, however, is the MoD producing any statement to meet the anxieties of the families and to say to them, with some degree of fairness, what the alternative arrangements will be?
324
Another aspect of health provision for the services which once would have been a part of the contribution made by the four service hospitals is the needs of families. Given the immensely valuable services which the MDHUs deliver to the NHS, why is it not possible for the MoD to negotiate a binding agreement applicable throughout the country on the issue of NHS waiting lists? That question has often been raised by the families. Again and again, a family on posting will just have reached the head of a list at hospital A, only to have to start again at the bottom at hospital B. That is a most stressful process, not helped by statements from at least one NHS hospital that Army families have less priority than civilians since they are not, after all, regular local residents and are owed no consideration.
Through the Task Force, the Army Families Federation has pressed for a guarantee that a "credit" be given to ensure that no one waits for more than a maximum total of 18 months in a continuous process between two or even three hospitals. Surely that is not unreasonable, and it is the least that the services should be able to expect as a quid pro quo for the major contribution which service doctors and nurses make daily in the MDHUs in taking on some of the NHS load—in my view, far too big a contribution.
The House has just debated the state of the NHS. The health of our soldiers, sailors and airmen deserves equal consideration and equally effective financial support. Failure to fund that seriously and effectively will be one more reason for failure to retain our forces. Our soldiers and their families, too, are members of the human race.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for having raised this important issue. No one who has read the excellent report of the Defence Select Committee in another place on the Defence Medical Services, published at the end of October last year, can have any doubt in their minds that the Defence Medical Services are in a state of crisis. There are enormous difficulties to be faced and grave doubts about whether they can be solved.
I want to concentrate, first, on the question of the hospital at Haslar. I declare a personal interest because I live near Portsmouth and over the past 15 years I have been a regular out-patient and, for a very short time for a small operation, an in-patient. Over that time, Haslar has been "mucked about", as has the whole of the Defence Medical Services, but perhaps more than any other part of the defence service. I have seen it as a completely naval hospital and as a hospital being transformed into a joint service hospital with the concept that it would remain the one joint-service hospital. I have seen that hope removed and now there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future.
The report from the Defence Select Committee gave a great deal of attention to the whole question of whether or not there should be a core service hospital. The committee studied and argued the matter with

325
great care. I am afraid that I must accept the conclusion which it reached reluctantly that a core hospital for the services, as a service hospital only, is not a going concern for the future.
However, the report also highlighted and gave great emphasis to the relationship of the run-down of Haslar with the establishment of the Centre for Defence Medicine. It expressed severe doubts, as I myself have, about whether the Defence Medical Services as they stand can manage the combination of the run-down of Haslar with the establishment of the Centre for Defence Medicine at Birmingham.
When the Minister replies, will he tell the House what "MD" stands for in "MDHU"? The Defence Select Committee report refers to it as a military district hospital unit and the Defence White Paper, a few months later, referred to it as a Ministry of Defence hospital unit. I should be grateful to know what it really stands for.
The report assumed that the MDHU at the Queen Alexandra Hospital at Cosham, or, at any rate, one in the Portsmouth area, would have been set up by 2002, but the most recent Defence White Paper, which has already been quoted, forecast that the Centre for Defence Medicine will open at the University Hospital in Birmingham in April 2001—not a very long time away—but that the MDHU at the Queen Alexandra Hospital at Cosham is dependent on the development of that hospital under the PFI which is expected to take several years. We are assured that Haslar will not be closed until that MDHU is up and running.
The Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, is a very good hospital but it is under great pressure now. It is absorbing patients not only from Haslar but from St Marys. From the point of view of somebody at Haslar, that last statement—that it will take several years—means more uncertainty, and probable continual run-down which will not be compensated for by the employment of civilians, who are already employed in considerable numbers at Haslar. It will inevitably mean a further large number of resignations, particularly in important specialties.
The result of that will be that the dire warnings in this Defence Select Committee report that the Defence Medical Services will not be able to handle that whole process may well come true.
This report deals in considerable detail and in a very balanced way with the problems posed in the MDHUs, to which reference has already been made. It is of vital importance to ensure that those MDHUs function properly and in a way that is satisfactory to the NHS hospitals, the service personnel in them, and to the service community which the MDHU serves. I am not satisfied that that is so at present. Some are undoubtedly better than others—for example, the MDHU at Colchester does not ever seem to have had any great problems. That is a really high priority issue.
The whole question of reservists and the TA hospitals is of very great importance. Because of the difficulties of the regular element of the Defence Medical Services, any major military operations are
326
bound to have to call on the TA hospitals and the reservists, both volunteer and regular, who are in the National Health Service. I do not believe that at present that is a satisfactory situation at all. The report deals with that to a certain extent. It is a very high priority issue.
What does the Ministry of Defence propose to do about all that? First, without doubt, it should cancel the application of the infamous 3 per cent savings imposed by the Strategic Defence Review. It was infamous in all areas, but its application to the Defence Medical Services is scandalous—and I should not say anything but that.
What this problem deserves is something like the action which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, took when he was Secretary of State for Defence in relation to procurement in the Ministry of Defence, which was in a mess. He called in Derek Rayner of Marks & Spencer, later Lord Rayner, and said, "Now, you look into this; tell me what is needed; and then I will put you in charge of putting it right". I believe that the Defence Medical Services need somebody like that. They need somebody of high standing in the medical world to come from outside and not, I hope, to produce a lot more changes. What is needed now is to accept the changes that have been proposed but to make certain that they work. Only by infusing the Defence Medical Services with that sort of spirit will it be possible to retain the essential people who are leaving at present, not quite in droves but in a steady trickle.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely pleased that my noble friend has asked this Question this evening, for those serving in the Defence Medical Services are very concerned that they will not be able to cope in the event of conflict. They are concerned also that not enough is being done to put that right. It is an appalling situation.
At Question Time on 2nd December, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, who is to answer the debate this evening, what was the establishment in the Defence Medical Services of medical consultants. He did not know but he promised to write to me with the answer. However, last month, as I had heard nothing, I tabled a Question for Written Answer and I received the Answer from him yesterday. He told me that on 1st December 1999, there were 174 accredited medical consultants in post against an operational requirement of 443. That is a shortfall of 269 which, if my arithmetic is correct, is well over 50 per cent. That is certainly not a satisfactory position.
Also, when the Minister replies, will he please tell the House how many of those 174 who are still in post have applied for premature voluntary retirement? After they have retired, how many consultant orthopaedic surgeons will still be serving and what is the operational requirement for orthopaedic surgeons? Likewise, what are the operational requirements for anaesthetists, burns and plastic surgeons and accident and emergency consultants?

327
Again, what will be the position when those currently seeking premature voluntary retirement have left the services? As I understand it, those are the major consultancies required close up to the field of battle.
Will the Minister also tell the House how the number of regular service consultants today, and after those applying for PVR have left, compares with the number serving just before it was announced in December 1998 that the Royal Hospital, Haslar, was to close? It is my belief that that announcement shattered the morale of many in the Defence Medical Services and was a major cause of the current rot.
It is quite obvious that those ghastly deficiencies need to be made up. How many orthopaedic and general surgical registrars are there in training in the Defence Medical Services? How many of the other specialties which I have mentioned in my speech are in post and in training at present?
I understand that last year's targeted recruitment campaign—which cost, I am told, £100,000—resulted in no medical recruits and just a handful of nursing recruits. That was money wasted. It was certainly not well spent.
How can the hospital cadre of the Defence Medical Services be expected to survive without a flagship tri-service hospital of sufficient size to train and retain a surgical and anaesthetic cadre capable of taking care of service personnel in peace and war? The effective disintegration of the service hospitals dealt a lethal blow to the morale of hospital service doctors who ask, "Why should I stay?". Further, the loss of institutional memory which resulted from the haemorrhaging of senior hospital doctors will have a catastrophic effect the next time we go to war for real. Some predict a second Crimea with old lessons being re-learnt at the expense of making mistakes in managing war-injured casualties, which means losing and crippling our servicemen.
I understand that ships in the Royal Navy that carry a consultant surgeon as part of their complement do have one, but that that surgeon rotates, par roulement, about every six weeks. In my view that cannot help to build up the necessary esprit de corps and confidence among the crew.
I am also told that the 100-bed primary casualty receiving ship, the RFA "Argos", can be manned at present for short exercises. However, can the Minister, when replying to the debate, assure the House that both the RFA "Argos" and the new 200-bed hospital ship currently being procured will be fully manned in the event of conflict? In order to operate effectively, our Armed Forces need to know that they will be properly cared for if wounded in action. As a nation, we have a duty to provide that medical care.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, in this interesting and timely debate, for which we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we have usefully heard both justifiable criticism and constructive suggestions. I am sure there is more to come. I agree with everything said by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver.
328
However, I hope that in answering, even if it is not his department, the Minister will find an opportunity to admit or at least recognise that the medical plan hatched by the central staff to the Ministry of Defence under intense Treasury pressure in the context of the defence costs study, better known as Front Line First, was probably one of the most disastrous initiatives ever to emanate from that department. It was made all the worse because far from such criticism being in hindsight, repeated warnings had been given in advance, directly to Ministers in your Lordships' House and in another place, that major mistakes were about to be made. They were warned that the consequences to the medical services, secondary care of service personnel and operational sustainability would be very serious indeed, as has now proved to be the case.
The root of the trouble was that too many core hospitals; that is, military hospitals, which were the cornerstone of the medical services in terms of professional incentives, motivation of specialists and the ability to expand for operational emergencies, were done away with; five out of six, if I recall correctly. As mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, the only one left is Haslar. That is now under threat of closure, and was probably in the wrong place, as many warned at the time.
As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that knocked the stuffing out of the medical services with the disastrous manning consequences this Government has now inherited. The Ministry of Defence, still in pursuit of yet more savings, with the term "Front Line First" pushing in the direction of support areas 'but what is the front line? Certainly the medical services should be considered as such' passed the buck of secondary care to the National Health Service, which had many problems of its own.
It did that by grafting on to National Health hospitals—some, I have to say, of varying quality— small medical and surgical teams from the medical services who, though promised it, never achieved the status of having their own wing around which morale could be built up.
There is certainly nothing wrong with Armed Forces doctors and specialists having a greater contact with civilian practitioners and patients. That occurred increasingly in military hospitals and has many advantages. However, such rushing in to complete integration meant that many of the military staff found themselves in geriatric wards. They were swept up in all the problems of the National Health Service. The result, predictably, was that specialists left. The loss of surgeons and anaesthetists was particularly serious to any operational commitment. The waiting list for appointments for service personnel became longer and longer. As pointed out by the Second Sea Lord, that had a serious effect on manning and, therefore, on the operational availability of battalions, ships and aircraft.

329
I take the point made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig: waiting in a long queue may be highly inconvenient for civilians but for service personnel it means a loss of operational capability. Such "hand in glove" with the National Health Service is still not working as well as it should. The Government are doing their best to correct the shortage of specialists. However, as stated by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, the services have had to rely disproportionately, indeed almost exclusively, on the reserve forces for their field hospitals and field ambulances in the event of significant operations occurring in support of our bullish foreign policy.
However, the reserve forces from the medical point of view is the health service, which has its own manning shortages. The release of those people cannot be relied upon in anything but the most major emergencies. As has been said, if the Kosovo operation had degenerated into a two-sided shooting war with serious casualties, which undoubtedly would have occurred, the medical services could have found themselves quite unable to cope because everything has deteriorated so much since the time of the Gulf War.
Now, the Government must put that right if the utility of our forces as a force for good in the world, about which the Government are always boasting, is not to be compromised. A starting point must not be to just tinker around with the management structure and this and that committee. It should first be admitted that the MoD got it all wrong. Then, as and when more doctors, specialists and manpower generally become available, the Government must start to put back some of the things which have been removed. That will require major resources, so that, among other things. specialists can be paid the sort of salaries which would attract and retain able people, as would be done in the marketplace.
There must also either be a new core hospital or Haslar should be reprieved. If we have gone too far down that road and the people are not available, we must build up proper wings of the National Health Service hospitals instead of the very unsatisfactory arrangement which exists at present. The centre of excellence, if given some bed spaces, could turn itself into a core hospital. That must be brought into action as soon as possible.
It is important to build up medical reserves, as is being done, to some extent. However, although an immense help, that is no substitute for a hard core of regulars who are available to train others and for active service at the drop of a hat, come what may.
I hope that the Government, with their heart so much in the right place over defence, will prove that they are better than the previous government at keeping the Treasury at bay. Their good intentions could then be backed by those extra resources, undoubtedly more than have been so far budgeted for, which are needed to put right this very serious state of affairs. However, because of past mistakes, that can no longer be done "on the cheap".
8.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, have read the report of the Defence Select Committee in another place. I have also read a helpful BMA briefing and wish to echo strongly the sentiments expressed by successive speakers in this debate.
The Defence Medical Services are at a low point; they are close to falling below the critical mass needed to rebuild. If one is going to maintain an effective Defence Medical Service, urgent action needs to be taken to review the levels of staffing; to reverse low morale and to give a sense of a core activity and core commitment back to the service.
We have had a drift downhill over the past 10 years. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that Front Line First was a classic mistake. It cut the logistical tail without which it is not possible to project forces on a sustainable basis. That, of course, was a failure of the previous government. The failure of our current Government has been to reverse that decline. They have at last conducted a Strategic Defence Review which should have considered not just the need for long-range strategic transport, but also the need for a full logistical tariff, including a defence medical dimension.
Clearly, further investment is needed; that is to say, more money. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will comment on this. I listened on the "Today" programme this morning to the new Conservative Shadow Chancellor promising yet again that he would cut taxes. I merely wish to ask: if one is going to provide this sort of increased investment, how will it be done while squeezing other expenditure further?
What do we need? One starts from the Strategic Defence Review and asks what this Government need and want to do with defence policy? It is really rather ambitious. Someone remarked earlier today that our current Government have a very activist foreign policy in terms of future deployment of forces abroad, partly in the service of defence diplomacy—one of the new themes of the Department for International Development—and partly in terms of the Government's European Defence Initiative. I know that at the European Council in Helsinki in December—very much on the initiative of the British Government—Members of the European Union agreed that we would constitute within the next three years a military force of 60,000 people, of which a quarter is likely to be provided by the British. That is to be sustainable at a distance from Europe for up to one year. There was nothing in the detail that I read relating to the medical dimension. There was a lot about strategic air lifts and strategic sea re-supply. But again, if one wants a sustainable force, the medical dimension is important.
One may say, as indeed the British have said in some of the discussions, that the British will provide most of the spearhead elements of this integrated European defence initiative and others will provide more of the logistical back-up. I remember at the time of the Gulf War that a large number of European countries fell over themselves to offer field hospitals, because that

331
was easier to offer than well-trained front-line troops. But even if we accept that others provide more of that sort of tail, clearly the British will need to have sufficient British capacity to cope with our immediate forces.
How do we supply that? As has already been remarked, here there is a clear link with the earlier debate today. One cannot at the same time rebuild the Defence Medical Services in competition with an under-funded and over-stretched National Health Service. Yet again, joined-up government requires one to think about those two things together. At the moment—it is well set out in the front-line documents to which I have referred—the weaknesses of each increase those of the other. There is rivalry over qualified staff; there is resistance from National Health Service trusts to the potential compulsory call-up of reserves, and thus to encouraging their staff to join the reserves.
If we want to rebuild core Defence Medical Services, there are clearly a number of things which need to be done soon. Better pay has to be part of that. There must be greater incentives to stay on, and concern about pensions for those who will retire earlier than they would retire from the National Health Service. It is an unavoidable part of any rescue package. There must be sufficient core facilities to provide a continuing sense of identity, not being swamped by the National Health Service. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, we need a Centre for Defence Medicine which is large enough and separate enough to have a clear military ethos. We need to have MDHUs—whatever that stands for and I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, will enlighten us on that question—which are sufficiently large and sufficiently autonomous to have a sense that they are not simply some small part of an over-stretched NHS hospital.
There needs to be a training margin. In everything that I have read it is clear that that training margin has been lost, and once it is lost it is difficult to rebuild. It is also difficult to retain existing staff. There needs to be a clear sense—I am not entirely sure what the Defence Secondary Care Agency is—of distinction between primary care operations and secondary care in terms of back-up. The secondary care must be particularly concerned with provision and training in specialisms in military medicine.
This is a question of priorities within the defence budget as well as of the overall size of the budget. The Strategic Defence Review set out some ambitious objectives. Her Majesty's Government, in the European Defence Initiative, in many ways are being even more ambitious. If there is not enough money in the budget, then Her Majesty's Government should not pretend to be so ambitious.
8.56 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for tabling this Unstarred Question. Before saying anything substantive, I remind the House that I have an interest.
332
My noble friend explained the problem with her usual clarity. I do not propose to revise the points of my noble friend or other noble Lords. I do not take issue with anything said so far tonight. Even the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, holds similar views to myself.
Last week I took part in an Unstarred Question debate. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, replied to any of my helpful questions about depleted uranium ammunition; I cannot think why. So I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming tonight. Of course, he may not be able to answer all my points, but the ones which he does not, I shall retable as Written PQs.
Anyone who follows defence matters will be well aware that DCS 15 was not a perfectly developed policy. Well over three years ago, when I was still on the Cross Benches, I was on an All-Party Defence Study Group visit to the Defence Secondary Care Agency. It was a nightmare visit. We immediately became aware of the substantial problems that we all now know about, and applied pressure on the Minister, both in the House and outside. What is interesting is that this Government's policy is not markedly changed, despite all the criticisms. We still have MDHUs and the agency structure. However, the Government have taken the policy further and decided to close the last service hospital—the Royal Hospital at Haslar. My noble friend Lord Swinfen talked about the effect on morale that that decision brought about. It is to be replaced by an MDHU nearby and a Centre for Defence Medicine. But Haslar is becoming run-down before the CDM is up and running. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, touched on the challenges involved.
Moreover, morale and retention in the DMS, if anything, is even worse. The Government have had this problem for nearly three years and have known about it for much longer than that. Is it not the case that in three years they have not made much of a dent in the problem? Surely if the DMS personnel were confident in the Government's plans, the loss of staff could have been stemmed, or even reversed.
During the previous debate, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proudly talked about how the NHS had attracted staff back to it. Why cannot the MoD do this with the DMS? Is the Government's plan for the DMS the final answer, the final solution to the problem? Can the Minister assure the House that the CDM will be up and running by April 2001? It appears to be a challenging target; nearly as much so as the efficiency targets that are causing the MoD so much difficulty.
It is clear from the contributions tonight that the problems of the DMS are largely to do with personnel. Unfortunately, the DMS has to compete with the NHS for staff. Worse still, it competes for the same specialties, as was noted by several noble Lords. There are particular problems with anaesthetists and orthopaedic surgeons. Perhaps when the Minister answers a question posed by my noble friend Lady Cox about orthopaedic surgeons he could say how many

333
with the DMS are fit and available for operations. There is no point in having specialists on strength in the United Kingdom but not fit for operations. My understanding is that there are no traumatologists in the DMS. Is this the case? If so, is the Minister content with that?
Noble Lords have identified two problems: pay and conditions of service. My noble friend Lady Cox raised the point that DMS staff do not have an easily exercised opportunity of engaging in private practice which could increase their earnings considerably. But on top of relatively poor salaries, the conditions of service life are not as good as they once were.
Furthermore, with the appetite of this Government for engaging in operations, there is no end in sight to the problems of overstretch. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that the Government were "ambitious"; I think that he used the word more than once. Military personnel need to undertake military training in order to be able to survive in the field. They also expect opportunities to undertake sport and adventure training. But this is proving very hard to achieve in the DMS. This is a vicious circle and the Minister will have to explain to your Lordships tonight how that circle is to be broken.
The Minister will point out that setting levels of pay is a task for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. He is, of course, correct. The Minister will at least send out positive signals by telling the House tonight that future pay awards will not be staggered. The Minister may respond to the point of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, on the state of our reserves. As the noble and gallant Lord explained, there are anxieties there as well. Because of the overstretch in the Regular Army, clinicians are reluctant to join the Territorial Army due to the fear of being called up for operations and, thus, damaging their own careers.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, raised the issue of servicemen waiting for appointments with consultants. He explained how important it was for servicemen to be treated rapidly. Does the Minister recognise the need to treat servicemen rapidly in order to keep them at their peak of physical fitness?
On a related point, given that 5,000 personnel are unfit for operations, can the Minister explain why funding to cut orthopaedic waiting lists for military personnel has been cut?
If it were not for the need to be able to conduct operations away from the home base, the problems faced by the Government would be much simpler. Much has been said about what would have happened if Kosovo became what I call a "hot operation". It may not quite have been intensive warfare, but it certainly involved significant engagement and, sadly, numerous casualties. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen covered this point. Hopefully, the casualties would be from the opposition, but they would still have to be properly treated and to our own standards of healthcare. We have a frightening ability to inflict casualties on an
334
opponent, but we would have to treat them as well. What I would like the Minister to tell us tonight—I shall not let him sit down until he does so—is what is the largest army formation that we can deploy with full medical cover for "hot operations". Is it true that we can support only one armoured brigade? Could we support a full armoured division if we called out the Territorial Army to complete the order of battle? What can the Minister tell us about our current capability?
This debate has quite properly focused on personnel issues; but there are also equipment issues. First, what are the plans for hospital ships? As my noble friend Lord Swinfen asked, would it be possible to man them?
The second issue concerns casualty evacuations. Many noble Lords may fondly believe that every serious casualty will be evacuated by helicopter. This is certainly the case with our current operations. We have only a limited number of helicopters, and in a "hot operation" demand soon could outstrip capacity. The Army has numerous tracked armoured ambulances called the FV432 Armoured Personnel Carrier. Is it correct that they are over 30 years old and that spare parts are difficult to come by? Are they able to keep up with the modern Warrior armoured fighting vehicles during manoeuvre warfare? Do the radios with which they are fitted actually work? It is no use having armoured ambulances if the commanders cannot direct them to casualties.
We have been discussing very serious problems. I do not see how the Minister is going to convince noble Lords that this Government have made any better progress than did their predecessor.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, takes a deep interest in the DMS. She has made known her concerns most effectively during the course of this debate. I join noble Lords in thanking her for the opportunity to debate this important issue this evening. I hope to respond to most of the points that have been raised tonight. However, if there are any issues that I do not address in the detail that they deserve, I shall certainly respond in writing to the noble Lords concerned.
I should like to start by reiterating the Government's commitment to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the medical support that they need. I am sure that noble Lords would wish to join me in paying tribute to the manner in which the Armed Forces carry out their tasks, both at home and abroad, often under very difficult circumstances. Of course, they must have the very best possible medical care. It is my view that this is being provided by members of the Defence Medical Services.
It is undeniable that the DMS faces a number of problems. The Government have long recognised this and have set about rectifying the situation. The Strategic Defence Review, which the Government initiated on coming to office, identified shortages both in medical manpower and in equipment.
As your Lordships are aware, the Government made an additional £140 million available to the DMS as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. The money

335
is for additional medical equipment and personnel. The £140 million is for the four years from 1998 to 2002. It is the Government's intention to maintain increased expenditure in subsequent years.
As noble Lords have recognised, the main problem facing the DMS is a shortage of manpower, and specifically the retention of trained personnel. The current shortfall of doctors is running at about 28 per cent and the shortfall in respect of nurses stands at some 42 per cent. Despite these shortages, I should like to emphasise that the DMS has, to date, met all of its operational commitments. I recognise that this is due in no small way to the dedication of those who serve in the DMS.
I am particularly mindful of the turbulence caused to medical personnel who experience frequent operational deployments due to shortages in their specialty. In order to reduce the frequency of deployments for consultants, our national hospital at Sipovo, in Bosnia, became a multinational facility in May 1999, which means that manning is now shared with allies. This arrangement is working well and has saved a number of United Kingdom medical posts. We are exploring the possibility of a similar arrangement in Kosovo.
The deployment of reservists on a voluntary basis in the Balkans is also helping to reduce overstretch among regular medical personnel. There are currently some 60 medical reservists serving in the Balkans who volunteered their services. This is useful experience for them and, of course, we welcome the contribution that they make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether the DMS is able to provide appropriate healthcare for the Armed Forces in the event of future conflict. Depending on the scale of any possible additional operational commitments, the call up of medical reservists might be necessary. Defence policy has always been based on the call up of reserves to supplement regular personnel when necessary. The need to call up reserves, including medical reserves, is kept under review as part of contingency planning.
The Strategic Defence Review placed an increased emphasis on the use of volunteer reserves and, in particular, increased the number of reserves in the Territorial Army to support the Army medical services. This increase comprises 2000 personnel, of whom over 600 are medical reserves, with the remainder being drivers and other general support personnel.
A major Territorial Army recruiting campaign for medical reserves was launched in September 1999. The initial response has been encouraging and around a thousand enquiries have been received. It is not yet clear how many people will eventually join, but this is a very promising start.
As I mentioned earlier, an additional £140 million was made available to the Defence Medical Services following the Strategic Defence Review. Among the measures being taken to enhance the operational capability of the DMS is the provision of two 200-bed primary casualty receiving ships, the increased
336
readiness of 800 TA field hospital beds, the formation of three new ambulance squadrons and an extra air evacuation flight.
As I have already acknowledged, retention of experienced personnel is the main problem facing the Defence Medical Services. The re-structuring of the services that took place following Defence Costs Study 15 in 1994 damaged morale and resulted in many medical personnel deciding to leave prematurely. It will inevitably take some time to restore manning levels in the DMS.
There are no quick or easy solutions to the problem, as it takes three years to train nurses and up to 12 years to train consultants. Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory and the number of medical cadetships and nurse training places has been increased. Recruitment of direct entry qualified doctors is difficult, however, and work is in hand to identify the barriers to such recruitment and, where possible, to take steps to remove them.
A key element of the new strategy for the Defence Medical Services which we announced in December 1998 was the creation of a Centre for Defence Medicine in association with a National Health Service centre of excellence. As your Lordships are aware—and has been mentioned during the course of the debate—the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust has been selected as the host for the Centre for Defence Medicine. The centre is to have an important academic role undertaking medical training and research, as well as providing clinical services and acting as the professional focus for the Defence Medical Services. The trust has provided good proposals which offer a firm foundation for the successful development of the centre. We believe that this new venture offers an exciting vision for the future and will encourage recruitment and retention in the Defence Medical Services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, mentioned the leaked letter from the former Sea Lord. No funding was programmed by the Ministry of Defence to reduce waiting lists for service personnel in the current financial year. The possibility of making funds available to pay for additional treatment to reduce waiting lists was considered. In the event this was not possible within the programmed budget. The possibility of action to reduce waiting lists, including orthopaedic waiting lists, in the next financial year is being pursued by the Ministry of Defence.
I refer to the point that was raised of NATO nations with military hospitals. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that France had opened its fifteenth military hospital and asked whether any NATO nations do not have separate military hospitals but rely on partnerships with civilian hospitals. I understand that although the French have opened a new military hospital they have reduced the number of military hospitals from 20 some three years ago to nine now. Some other NATO nations besides the United Kingdom do not have separate military hospitals, for example, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

337
A number of noble Lords mentioned the updating of the intensive care unit at Haslar—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, while we are discussing NATO nations, I hope that the Minister can help me on this matter. The United Kingdom has committed itself to providing a substantial proportion of the new European rapid reaction force. In view of what he said about multi-national hospitals in Kosovo and Bosnia, is it assumed that the defence medical dimension for the British contribution to that force will be provided from within Britain, or is it assumed that it will be provided in part by other NATO nations?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. I hope to give him a specific answer before I have finished replying to the debate.
I return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and noble Lords in relation to the Haslar hospital. The noble Baroness referred specifically to the new intensive care unit at Haslar and suggested that money had been wasted because intensive care services were subsequently transferred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Portsmouth. The intensive care facilities at Haslar were updated late in 1995, as no doubt the noble Baroness and noble Lords are aware. Before the hospital became a tri-service facility, the reconfiguration of the intensive care services became necessary in 1999 as a result of low throughput of patients combined with a shortage of service manpower.
As regards a possible move to the Royal Defence Medical College from Fort Blockhouse, the Ministry of Defence stated in the future strategy of the Defence Medical Services that ideally the Royal Defence College would be integrated with the new Centre for Defence Medicine. This issue is being examined as part of the work of the Centre for Defence Medicine. The financial cost of such a move has not yet been assessed but it is not expected to amount to anywhere near the figure that I believe was in the mind of the noble Baroness. I am informed that those personnel at the college who visited the University Hospital Birmingham Trust are enthusiastic about the college moving there. Many of us can appreciate the reasons for that enthusiasm.
As to the point raised by the noble Baroness about the use of former service hospitals, such as the Princess Alexandra Hospital at RAF Wroughton and others, there are no plans to reopen former service hospitals at either the Wroughton, Halton or Aldershot sites. The hospitals did not provide sufficient patients or the variety of cases needed to train medical personnel for their operational duties or to obtain the necessary training accreditation of the Royal Colleges. The Wroughton site was sold in January, while the A & E wing of the Cambridge military hospital is being used by the Frimley Park Hospital Trust.
The issue of Royal Air Force consultant physicians and Royal Navy orthopaedic consultants was raised by a number of noble Lords, who asked how many Royal
338
Air Force consultant physicians and Royal Navy orthopaedic consultants are in post as at 1st February compared with the number required. There were five Royal Navy orthopaedic consultants against a requirement of 10; at the same date, there were six Royal Air Force consultant physicians against a requirement of six, with a further three filling command and staff posts.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I was not specific as to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force; I was asking about the Defence Medical Services as a whole.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I shall respond to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, a little later. I was answering a point raised by the noble Baroness about those two areas. I realise that the noble Lord's point went a little further.
As to the point raised in relation to the Centre for Defence Medicine, we plan to have the initial agreement in place for the host trust by 1st April 2000. Detailed discussions are now well under way. The Centre for Defence Medicine is to open by 2001. The rate of development from then on will be by agreement with the University Hospital Birmingham Trust. At the same time, it will meet the requirements of the Defence Medical Services. The Centre for Defence Medicine will open with approximately 100 personnel, including administrative support, on 1st April 2001. It is expected to grow over the next five to 10 years at a rate, and to an optimum size, jointly agreed by the MoD and the trust involved. Detailed planning to ensure the appropriate provision of the manpower to the Centre for Defence Medicine and other Defence Medical Services commitments are currently in hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made reference to the figures. I appreciate that his point is well made. The retention of manpower is vitally important in this area. At 1st December, the total strength of the regular Defence Medical Services was 6,174 against a requirement of 8,530—and that is where the 28 per cent shortfall that I mentioned earlier comes in. Between December 1998 and November 1999, a total of 25 medical officers submitted applications for premature voluntary retirement. Of the 25, 19 were specialists and six were GPs. As of 1st December 1999, the total strength of medical officers was 865, including all trainees, against a post-SDR requirement of 1,201. That represents a shortfall of 28 per cent. Twenty-five applications for premature, voluntary retirement represent 4.6 per cent of the total strength.
I may not have covered all the points raised in the debate. I know that I have not covered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on the traumatologists. That issue is rather complex and I should like to write to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, felt that the training margin has been lost. All noble Lords have concerns on that issue. But I hope that from what I have said tonight with regard to the Centre for Defence Medicine and the Ministry of Defence hospital units, the training margin in the future may well be protected and, indeed, enhanced. We are on a much better course in that respect at the moment.

339
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked about reserves. He mentioned that the reserves were indeed, in the main, National Health Service reserves. That is accepted and, with that in mind, the MoD is in constant dialogue with the National Health Service. I am pleased to say that the relationship between the National Health Service and, indeed, the MoD, is at its best. A number of liaison groups and committees have been set up to discuss matters of common interest, such as personnel issues, operational planning and the application to the Defence Medical Services of developments in civilian medical practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other noble Lords referred to wages within the Defence Medical Services. The re-organisation of the Defence Medical Services in recent years has meant that medical personnel of the three services now work more closely together. Different terms of service created some problems and have become a source of discontent. Rationalised terms of service for medical and dental officers have been agreed and proposed pay spines based on the terms of service have recently been submitted to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for agreement in principle. Rationalised terms of service for nurses have been agreed in principle also.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, asked about the Ministry of Defence hospital units. They are working well, providing an excellent clinical environment and representing good 'value for money. It is clear that the majority of younger medical officers value the training opportunities created by the patient volume in the case mix provided by the MoD hospital units.
340
I have been warned that I have run out of time. I have not been able to cover a number of points.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend's Question referred to the event of future conflict. Will the Minister say whether we can support an armoured brigade in operations without calling out the TA?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to answer that query with a quick reply. But it is a fair question. Some time needs to be spent on it, which is not available to me tonight. However, I will respond to that point and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for raising the issue.
The noble Earl asked about the present availability of operational deployment. It is not possible to say how many medical personnel are required to support a particular size of force. It depends on whether the force is employed in war fighting or peacekeeping operations and with whom the UK forces might be deployed. I know that that is only a brief answer to what was a perfectly valid question from the noble Earl.
The Government acknowledge that there is no quick solution to the manpower problems facing the Defence Medical Services. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the measures being taken as a result of the Strategic Defence Review, combined with our new strategy for the Defence Medical Services, provide the basis for ensuring that the Armed Forces continue to receive the high quality medical support they both need and deserve.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  Community Legal Services
  Community Legal Services
  Inland Revenue 35
  Inland Revenue 35
  Single Currency Membership
  Single Currency Membership
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Special Advisers: Relationship with Civil Service
  Special Advisers: Relationship with Civil Service
  Gypsies and Other Travelling People
  Gypsies and Other Travelling People
  Legislation: Amendments to Bills
  Legislation: Amendments to Bills
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  Human Rights Select Committee
  Human Rights Select Committee
  Probation Service: Change of Name
  Probation Service: Change of Name
  Mike Tyson
  Mike Tyson
  Either-way Offences committed to Crown Court
  Either-way Offences committed to Crown Court
  Freedom of Information and Task Forces
  Freedom of Information and Task Forces
  Midwives
  Midwives
  British Biathlon Union
  British Biathlon Union
  CAP Payments: Use by Farmers of OS Maps
  CAP Payments: Use by Farmers of OS Maps
  Employment Tribunal Applications and Disability Discrimination Act
  Employment Tribunal Applications and Disability Discrimination Act
  pig Production
  pig Production
  Livestock Producers: Receiverships, Bankruptcies and Insolvencies
  Livestock Producers: Receiverships, Bankruptcies and Insolvencies
  Plant Varieties of Agricultural Species
  Plant Varieties of Agricultural Species
  Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group
  Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Old Palace Yard Refurbishment
  Old Palace Yard Refurbishment
  Acts of Parliament: Printing Proposals
  Acts of Parliament: Printing Proposals