Sitting of 17 January 2000

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

    Prison Overcrowding
    Mr. Tom Brake: How many prisons are overcrowded. [103961]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Measures of overcrowding vary. At the end of November 1999, based on the measure preferred by the Prison Reform Trust, 62 establishments exceeded their uncrowded capacity. However, no prisons exceeded their safe maximum capacity.
    Mr. Brake: Will the Minister confirm whether it is to become official Government policy to use prison hulks to tackle overcrowding? Will the life of HMP Weare be extended beyond the agreed finish date of 2003? Is he actively looking at whether HMS Invincible could be used as a hulk ship, as reported in the weekend's press?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman ought not to believe everything that he reads in the press—even in Focus. HMP Weare has proved to be an unalloyed success, and we have made no final decision about its future. We will ensure that the courts have at their disposal all the accommodation necessary to hold prisoners safely and securely. We are determined to hold prisoners in that way, not least because our concern—unlike that of the Liberal Democrats—is not, first and foremost, the number of people in prison, but how best we reduce crime.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What are we doing to empty the prisons of the mentally ill?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have instituted a programme of reform of prison health care. One of the main strands of that is to improve communication and co-operation between the NHS and the Prison Service, precisely to identify more speedily and readily places in medium secure and high secure units for those who more properly belong there.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will be aware of the strong feeling in north and mid-Wales that there is no local prison, and that the prisons serving
    538
    the area are inconvenient, with prisoners not in their own communities. If there is a need for additional prison capacity, will he look at the possibility of an additional prison in north and mid-Wales and of using European funds to help finance it?
    Mr. Boateng: I would be delighted to do that. On my visits to Wales—including visits to prisons—I have been made aware of the sentiment in relation to the need for more local provision. I have had some communication on the issue with the Assembly Members concerned and I will bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Does not the management of prison capacity have undesirable side-effects, such as the movement of prisoners hundreds of miles away from their friends and relatives? Does it not disrupt education programmes? Will my right hon. Friend look at those difficulties?
    Mr. Boateng: We have in mind the need to make sure that we locate prisoners as near as possible to their family centres and that we take steps to ensure that the reintegration and rehabilitation of prisoners is not undermined by capacity issues. My hon. Friend will appreciate the operational imperatives in terms of ensuring that we have a system that is suitably flexible to enable us to hold prisoners in conditions of safety and security. He will be aware that we have reduced overcrowding in our prisons from the high level that we inherited. However, there is no room for complacency and we keep a close eye on the figures.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I welcome the Minister's statement that HMP Weare has been a resounding success, given all that Labour said about the use of a ship when we introduced it. What percentage of prisoners are in cells designed for one prisoner, but being used by two? What percentage of prisoners are in cells designed for two prisoners, but being shared by three? In how many prisons has slopping out returned—on however limited a scale—as a result of bringing back into use old accommodation?
    Mr. Boateng: It was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who brought HMP Weare into play, and it was he who took steps to solve the problem of prison overcrowding. Before the right hon. Lady casts any strictures in our direction, she should consider her own record in government. In 1996–97, prisons were at 106.2 per cent. capacity; now the figure is 105.6 per cent.—it is lower. There is worse: in 1997–98, the last year for which the Conservatives had stewardship of the Prison Service, the figure was 108.1 per cent. The right hon. Lady is in no position to cast aspersions in our direction. We are on course to meet—
    Mr. Michael Jack: What about answering the question?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman should not get so aerated. If only he would contain himself, we would come to the answer.
    In 1990–91, under Conservative stewardship, the average number of prisoners held three to a cell designed for one was 2,677. That number has certainly not been

    539
    exceeded today. The figure is on target for the key performance indicator by which one measures the number of prisoners in overcrowded cells. We are clearing up the mess that the Conservatives left us.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Minister must be hard of hearing. What percentage of the prison population is sharing two to a cell designed for one? I shall ask the questions very slowly so that he can look up the answers. What percentage of the prison population is sharing three to a cell designed for two? In how many prisons has slopping out, which we eliminated completely, returned as a result of bringing old accommodation back into use? Those are three simple questions. If he does not know the answers, let him admit it; but I always knew the answers to such questions when I was in his position.
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady might have known the answers, but she did nothing to tackle the problem. We are tackling it, and I will write to her with the specific answers that she seeks.
    Miss Widdecombe: We take it from that that the Minister does not know the answers to three simple questions.
    I do not know whether it is trne that the Prison Service is considering the use of aircraft carriers. If it is looking for temporary accommodation, that suggests a shortfall in prison places. I have two very simple questions: is the Minister planning any additional permanent accommodation over and above that already announced; and, if so, how does he intend to pay for it, given the very clear statement of the then Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who said in a letter to the Home Secretary that he would entertain no further claims on the reserve for the purposes of easing pressures in overcrowded prisons?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady need have no fear about the availability of funds for building the new prisons needed to fulfil the requirements that the courts impose on the system by way of holding prisoners in safe and secure conditions. We have three prisons currently under construction—Forest Bank, Onley II and Marchington—and there are plans for three more at Ashford, Peterborough and Ashworth. Those will all be funded and will fulfil the current requirements for the prison population.
    Last year, 67,800 prison places were required. In 2001–02, we will have 71,400 places. That is what the Government are doing to address the under-resourcing of the Prison Service under the right hon. Lady's stewardship. We face up to the problems and address them, while ensuring that we also address the causes of crime: she and her Government flunked them.

    Public Safety Radio Communications Project
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What estimate he has made of the impact on police budgets of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [103962]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Some £5 million has been provided from the police grant for the next financial year. Once the
    540
    service is fully operational, the cost is estimated to be around £150 million per year at today's prices, which will be equivalent to some 2 per cent. of police authority budgets. The cost will be reduced by the £50 million subsidy that I announced last September, and will also be taken into account in the overall level of resources provided for the police service in future years. The new digital radio and data system is of great importance to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of front-line police officers.
    Mr. Blunt: While one accepts that the new system will improve the police's communication capacity, does not part of the need for it derive from the fact that the Government have sold off part of the radio spectrum? The Home Secretary mentioned costs of £150 million a year, but the total cost will be some £1.5 billion, of which the Government will produce the generous amount of £50 million from the central budget. When will Surrey have the benefit of the new radio system, and what will be the consequences for Surrey's budget of having to pay for that Government-imposed requirement? Over the next few years, Surrey will move from having the best crime prevention rates in the country and a good funding settlement to having the worst funding settlement—the Home Secretary has offered to meet me to discuss that.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the background to the project. It has arisen not because we have sold off the radio spectrum but because the Government whom he supported agreed, in the mid-1990s, that the spectrum for the police service should change under the terms of an EU directive. A digital radio and data system that will cover the whole country is a vital need for the police service. It will become operational in all police services by 2004, although I cannot give him a precise date for Surrey. The cost will be £150 million a year, which adds up to £1.5 billion over the life of the project. We have already found £50 million from the capital modernisation fund for the immediate costs and, of course, as we agree funding for the police service—including for Surrey—for subsequent years, we will take fully into account the costs of the capital radio project.
    Dr. George Turner: In my experience, the only people who will not welcome this investment in proper technological support for the police are the criminals. If we ensure that the police have such support, they will do their job much more effectively. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in the past 20 years, the pattern of investment in all technology has been patchy and that this Government need to address those areas in which money was not invested in the past to try to bring the police force up to a reasonable standard within a reasonable time?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's comments. Investment in technology for the police service has been made in the past. Some of that investment has been successful, but some has not, not least because the decisions have been left to individual police services, which has sometimes led to incompatible radio and IT

    541
    systems. That is why it is essential for the future that, as far as possible, large IT projects such as the police radio project are co-ordinated on a national basis.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: It is true that the radio communications project is welcomed by the police and that a contribution will be made to it from central funds. However, can the Home Secretary yet tell us whether he has made a decision about future general funding to pay for the project and for the police recruitment that he plans? He has announced £35 million from the crime-fighting fund for next year; it will cost at least £150 million to recruit 5,000 police officers, let alone to keep them on after that. When will both the Met—whose outgoing Commissioner has warned of the problem—and the rest of the police forces know that they have the money guaranteed to ensure that they have a real-terms increase in funds, not a real-terms cut?
    Mr. Straw: The only period in the past 10 years when there was a real-terms cut in police service funding occurred in, I think, 1995–96, under the previous Administration. We have set out firm spending plans for the year 2000–01. Additionally, for that year, we have allocated this extra £35 million as the first slice to pay for the 5,000 additional officers. The money for the following years will be announced as part of the spending review 2000, which will be announced later this year.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will not 80 per cent. of the £1.4 billion that this important radio project costs be paid by police authorities, through the common police services budget? That decision has already been taken, but the costs come on top of the shortfall of £1.2 billion in police funding over the next three years predicted by the police service forecasting group, working on behalf of the police authorities. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will receive the group's findings any day now. They show that the police service cannot afford to meet the radio project costs without further cuts in the number of police officers.
    When will the Home Secretary face up to the reality of the worst funding crisis for our police service in living memory? The issue may not have prompted the press mauling that the right hon. Gentleman has suffered recently in connection with other matters, but if he does not punch his weight more effectively with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will be on the canvas and counted out.
    Mr. Straw: That was a rather ropy question.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that 80 per cent. of the costs will be paid from the central police grant and that deductions will be made in the grant. That is the only rational way to fund the project. However, I have already made clear what funding will be announced for 2001 and thereafter.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the most difficult time that police forces face. In response, I can do no better than to quote Mr. Paul Scott-Lee, the chief constable of Suffolk. Speaking about our crime-fighting fund and the 5,000 extra officers, he said that his force had had its
    "most difficult time about five years ago."
    That was when real-terms spending on the police went down, not up.

    Crime Figures (Kent)
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will make a statement on the most recent crime figures for Kent. [103963]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The latest figures, covering the 12 months to September 1999, will be published tomorrow. I hope that they will show continued strong performance in reducing crime in Kent.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful for that answer, and especially for the Government's recognition of Kent's status as the gateway to Europe, which places an additional burden of crime on the local police. However, is my hon. Friend aware that some senior policemen in Kent believe that the criminal networks set up to bootleg alcohol and tobacco are now involved in smuggling illegal immigrants, pornography and drugs into the country? One senior officer has likened that trade to the evolution of organised crime in the United States in the early days of prohibition.
    Will my hon. Friend ensure that he continues to monitor crime figures in Kent? Will he also ensure that Kent police have the money needed to combat this very worrying threat?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the issues raised by my hon. Friend, and I have discussed them with senior police officers in Kent. In fact, the other day I discussed those very matters—organised crime, smuggling and trafficking in people—with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). We also discussed how those crimes impacted on the people of Kent.
    My hon. Friend makes a good point. I assure him that we will keep the question of organised crime in Kent— the gateway to Europe—under close review.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I share the Minister's hope that tomorrow's figures will show a further reduction in crime in Kent. Since 1994, crime in the county has reduced by 16 per cent. However, has the Minister had an opportunity to study last week's letter to the Home Secretary from the chairman of the Kent police authority? In it, she points out that the Home Secretary's decision on the funding of the radio project referred to in the previous question means that Kent police will face additional revenue costs of £3 million a year, and additional capital costs of more than £4 million a year. She says that that will have a damaging effect on future budgets for the Kent police, and on police manpower numbers.
    What impact does the Minister expect the additional financial pressures on the Kent police exerted by the crimes described by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) to have on the future course of crime in the county, and on the police's ability to combat it?
    Mr. Clarke: I have indeed seen the letter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Given his experience, he will know that I have received similar letters from chairs of police authorities throughout the country and have discussed with delegations the

    543
    requirement for all police authorities at all times to secure future funding for their forces. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall continue to keep these matters under close review. The basis of that review will be the outcomes of the policing that is taking place in every force throughout the country—how well their policing has impacted on recorded levels of crimes. In that context, I am confident that Kent will continue to show an improvement, because of its outstanding police force and the outstanding leadership that that police force has.

    CCTV
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: How much the Government are investing in CCTV systems in the current financial year. [103964]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government are investing £153 million over three years in the closed circuit television initiative. I am pleased to announce today a further 181 awards to a value of £34 million under the first round of the initiative, bringing the total funding allocated during the current financial year to just under £40 million for 217 schemes. Details of the approved schemes are available on the Home Office website. A further 137 schemes, with a potential value of £25 million, require further information or reassurance before approval can be given.
    Mr. Khabra: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. May I also thank him for his support for the borough of Ealing's application? Two bids have been approved to install more cameras in my constituency. How effective is CCTV in the reduction of crime under the Government's programme? In what categories of crime has such reduction taken place, and which areas have benefited most?
    Mr. Clarke: I was delighted that the approvals that I mentioned earlier—including schemes from Southall town centre, Springbridge road and Acton town centre— bring investment in CCTV in my hon. Friend's constituency to a total value of £644,000. There is no doubt that CCTV reduces crime, especially in areas such as secure car parks, where individual reductions of up to 80 per cent. have been achieved, and on housing estates, where CCTV can make a material difference to security. There is no doubt that it has an impact; we are investing far more than ever before, and I am delighted that the programme is being established strongly throughout the country.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I hope that your cold gets better, Madam Speaker.
    I am pleased that the Minister is funding CCTV in Labour constituencies, but why has the application by Ampthill in Mid-Bedfordshire been turned down in the past? Will he be funding it this time round?
    Mr. Clarke: I cannot immediately tell the hon. Gentleman why the application was turned down. However, two programmes were agreed today in the
    544
    constituency of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), so we cannot be accused of refusing the application on party-political grounds.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Thank you very much.
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to collect credits from wherever they come.
    We have a detailed set of specifications on making CCTV work more effectively to ensure value for money.' Where schemes have been turned down—in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example—the Home Office is committed to discussing with the local authorities and police ways of improving the scheme so that applications can be agreed in future. That applies to a number of schemes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to look closely at the scheme to which he referred and see what can be done.

    Community Support and Funding
    5. Mrs. Helen Brinton: What support and funding are available to community groups for (a) fighting crime and (b) working to improve the quality of life in their areas. [103965]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government are committed to promoting and developing community involvement and self-help as part of their overall aim of improving the quality of life in all communities. In support of that, the Government allocate funds to umbrella bodies that provide expert advice, support and training to local community groups to help strengthen the community sector infrastructure and fight crime. A number of projects are already being run by the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, including the reducing burglary initiative, targeted policing and closed circuit television.
    Mrs. Brinton: I welcome that reply, and my hon. Friend's clear commitment to making our communities safer. What does my hon. Friend have to say in praise of the Eastfield residents association? That part of my constituency was dubbed a war zone in the House two years ago, but the association has worked well to combat crime. In addition, how would he reply when the association says that local people can do only so much and that they would like some Government support?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has told me about the work of that residents scheme, and I am happy to commend it. Active communities and tenants and residents associations make a massive difference in reducing crime in many communities. The thrust of our crime reduction partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is to link with initiatives such as those taken in my hon. Friend's constituency and to bring resources to bear where they can make the greatest difference. In many crime reduction partnerships, community involvement makes a material difference in delivering results.
    Mr. James Paice: Will the Minister consider the work done in the city of Cambridge by the charity Wintercomfort? Will he

    545
    consider in particular the case of my constituent, John Brock, the director of the charity, who, just before Christmas, was sentenced to four years in prison for drugs-related offences, the details of which I shall not bore the House with? That has had serious consequences for many community programmes that try to help the homeless and people at the bottom of our society to overcome their problems, including drug abuse. Will the Minister see whether there is anything he can do?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on the specifics of the case to which he refers, as that is a matter for the courts. I am, however, prepared to consider his substantive point about the impact of the court case on the charity involved and the means required for support, and I will listen to representations from the hon. Gentleman or from people from his constituency on how the strength of charity and community work can be maintained at a time of significant disruption.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome all that my hon. Friend has said, but will he have a word with our mutual right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Home Office, who, on a visit to Telford, saw the work of The Wrekin community safety partnership, which was set up in 1993 when there were not many such partnerships? The partnership has shown great strength in identifying local problems and solutions. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the best practice to be found among the partnerships is made widely available? We can all learn from each other.
    Mr. Clarke: I take that point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is sitting next to me and tells me that the scheme in The Wrekin is excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott) made the profound point that we must be much more effective in spreading knowledge of best practice in community schemes. We have set in motion a process that will make us far more effective in that area than we have been hitherto.

    Regulatory Impact Assessment
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office regarding the regulatory impact assessment for the Representation of the People Bill. [103966]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The regulatory impact assessment was available when the Bill was published on 18 November, and it expressed the Government's collective view.
    Mr. Swayne: The impact assessment is a very thin document. How did the costs to business—estimated by the Confederation of British Industry at hundreds of millions of pounds—entirely escape those who made the assessment?
    Mr. O'Brien: The regulatory impact assessment assesses impact on the economy. The CBI's estimate is more concerned with the impact on particular businesses. When businesses seek alternative sources of information, they may find that the whole economy will benefit. The Bill's provisions were agreed by Conservative
    546
    representatives on the electoral procedures working party, and resulted from the data protection directive, to which the Conservative party signed up.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If the seven batches of amendments that I tabled to the Representation of the People Bill had been accepted, there would have been cost compliance provisions and, presumably, some knock-on effect as regards the assessment. I do not know whether any assessment was made of how much I would have cost the nation—or the economy—if those measures had been developed. Is it not better to spend money—as the Bill does—on electoral registration so as to ensure that it is fully achieved, rather than on measures that would destroy it? That was what the Opposition did when they were in government and introduced the poll tax.
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that Conservative Members' constituents will be bewildered by the fact that some of them appear to oppose provisions in the Bill that would make it easier for people to vote. Why are they so frightened that people should be able to vote?

    Police Pensions
    Mr. David Rendel: What amount and proportion of police funding was spent on pensions in (a) 1990 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [103967]
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What measures he is taking in respect of the funding of police pensions. [103972]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Net pensions expenditure in 1989–90 amounted to £285 million, or 6.9 per cent. of total spend. For 1998–99, expenditure was £889 million or 12.6 per cent. of total expenditure. We have increased the proportion of overall funding to be distributed for police pensions to 13.2 per cent. in 1998–99, and to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000, in recognition of increasing pension costs.
    Following a major review of the police pensions system, I am currently considering what longer-term changes, if any, are required.
    Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer; it shows that the proportion of money spent on police pensions has almost doubled during that period. Does he recall the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) just before Christmas, which said that, this year, four police forces are seeing a reduction in real-terms spending? However, if we take out pensions spending, 14 police forces will see a reduction in real-terms spending. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that? How will he get more policemen back on the beat?
    Mr. Straw: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that, as he knows, we have found additional new money—£35 million—for the next financial year, and more thereafter, to pay for the 5,000

    547
    police recruits over and above the number that will otherwise be recruited. The arrangements whereby the police pension costs form part of each police authority's budget are of long standing; they have some merits in ensuring that police forces concern themselves with, for example, the number of unnecessary medical retirements that they permit. However, I accept that those rising costs throughout the country are of great concern to the police service—as they are to me. That is why we are examining the longer-term future of the pension scheme.
    Mrs. Lait: May I begin by thanking Ministers, on behalf of the people of Penge, for the closed circuit television system? However, although it might reduce the amount of crime on the streets of Penge, I suspect that the residents will feel equally concerned about police numbers, and will be even more concerned when they realise what a large proportion of the Metropolitan police budget goes on pensions. I have listened with great care to the exchange between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Will the Home Secretary reassure me further that, when that fact is taken with the expenditure on radios to which reference has already been made, the people of Penge, and of Beckenham and the whole of London, will not see a reduction in front-line policing over time because of the costs of radio and pensions?
    Mr. Straw: It is my fervent hope that the circumstances that the hon. Lady desires come about. I also point out to her that, during the whole period between 1992 and March 1998, when the budgets had been set by the Conservative Administration whom she supported, the Metropolitan police lost 2,060 officers. I worked hard to try to stabilise the number of Metropolitan police officers, and, in the year that ended in March 1999, the reduction was not 2,000, but just 21.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not an impossible situation when the proportion of police funding for pensions continues to increase? Although I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has admitted that he will undertake a fundamental review of the matter, I urge him to adopt, at the earliest practical date, a fully funded pension scheme for the police service, and to introduce it gradually so that it will not disadvantage serving officers or reduce their pension expectations, but will, in the longer term, provide security for them and their families.
    Mr. Straw: I have already said that, obviously, the changes to the police pension scheme will not disadvantage existing serving officers. We are closely examining the idea of a fully funded scheme, which in principle would be a more satisfactory alternative. The problem that we are up against, to which we have found no solution, although we hope that one may be forthcoming, is that the initial costs—the funding costs— of a fully funded scheme are very substantial and that money would have to be found from somewhere.

    The Tote
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement about the future of the Tote. [103968]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We announced last May that the Tote was to be sold. Since then we have been considering, with the help of independent advisers, how and on what terms the sale should proceed, and we intend to announce our conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Grogan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that our 59 race courses are a great national asset and that, as an alternative to selling the Tote to the highest bidder, there are great merits in the proposals being jointly advanced by the Tote and the racing industry to set up a racing trust to buy and run the Tote, so maintaining the vital source of income to racing from the Tote and ensuring that in future it is run on a wholly commercial basis for the benefit of the sport as a whole?
    Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree that our racing industry is a national asset. We are considering the merits of several proposals. The sale options under consideration include a sale to a racing trust, a sale to racing in another way, a sale on the open market and a flotation on the stock exchange. We intend to sell the Tote as a single business, in line with the May announcement.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: That answer was not satisfactory. The Tote was set up by the racing industry. It does not belong to the state. It has never taken a state subsidy, and it should be returned to the racing industry. Does the Minister agree?
    Mr. O'Brien: The Tote will go to the proper and appropriate purchasers or people who provide the state with some funding in return for it. It is right that the interests of racing, of those who work for the Tote and of the taxpayer should all be considered when taking a final decision. We shall announce that decision very shortly.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Clive Efford: What assessment he has made of the contribution of CCTV to the prevention and detection of crimes; and if he will make a statement. [103969]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Police operational experience and a number of research studies reveal that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection success, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.
    Schemes funded under the current CCTV initiative will be evaluated to build up a knowledge base of what works best and in what context.
    Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that an answer. May I pass on the thanks of Greenwich council and Eltham police for the scheme that is being funded by the CCTV initiative? May I ask him to join me in congratulating Eltham police, who, by using a temporary scheme over Christmas, managed to arrest 10 individuals with the help of evidence that was gathered by camera, in a period when they would usually expect to arrest four or five individuals? Does he agree that this is vital step forward for the police, in that it will enable them to deploy resources more efficiently?

    549
    However, there is some concern about the ownership of the evidence that is gathered. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to secure public confidence in the long term, there needs to be a degree of openness and accountability about the evidence that is gathered by camera?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that information and I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in Eltham on the success of their initiative over Christmas. There are many examples of areas where such initiatives have worked very well, but I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the evidential basis of some of the material that is collected needs—and is being given— very careful examination and assessment.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Is the Minister aware of a recent local crime prevention survey carried out in mid-Suffolk that shows that 90 per cent. of local residents in Stowmarket believe that the introduction of a CCTV scheme in that town centre would enhance local safety? Is he further aware that Mid Suffolk district council in my constituency is considering making a bid this year for the second round of challenge funding? In light of that, can the Minister assure me today that, on receipt of a bid, he will bear in mind the fact that Stowmarket is the only market town of its size in Suffolk without a CCTV scheme, and seriously consider giving Stowmarket the share of funding that it deserves under the challenge funding scheme?
    Mr. Clarke: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. However, it might have been more in character with his usual graciousness had he acknowledged that the scheme in Bury St. Edmunds that we have announced today has been given to his constituency and is a step forward. It might also have been gracious for a former special adviser to a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer to acknowledge that in this one year the Government have given more to CCTV schemes than was given in the whole of the last five years of the Conservative Government.
    I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall consider carefully the bid for Stowmarket, a place which I travel through frequently on the train from Norwich to London. As I flash past, I shall try to glean what I can to assess the town's crime needs.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's contribution to the introduction of CCTV throughout the community. However, may I press him for more portable CCTVs in communities? My own constituency is asking for such facilities, which would do a tremendous amount to reduce crime in Outwood and Stanley. Will my hon. Friend tell us what provision for portable CCTV is made in the allocation to which he has referred?
    Mr. Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's points—indeed, a number of the schemes agreed and announced today are portable CCTV schemes. We are currently drawing up the guidelines for the next round in which I hope we shall announce results more regularly— every three months or whatever—than on a year-by-year basis. In the guidelines, we intend to give priority not only to portable CCTV schemes such as those that have been mentioned, but to schemes that focus on rural areas and
    550
    on parades in out-of-town estates, which have not always been at the top of priority lists. I hope that previous experience will inform the future programme, which remains very substantial over the next two or three years.
    Mr. David Lidington: Given the undoubted effectiveness of closed circuit television in preventing and reducing crime in this country, why do police force figures show that, in the first six months of the current financial year, recorded crime rose nationally by no less than 5 per cent? Why is that happening?
    Mr. Clarke: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the figures tomorrow to see exactly what is happening on recorded crime throughout the country. However, there is no doubt that CCTV can have a major impact in reducing crime in the ways that I described to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). It might be in keeping to acknowledge that the Government are trying to use this important weapon to reduce crime in a way that most Members on both sides of the House would acknowledge is beneficial.

    Wheel Clamping
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to regulate the activities of private wheel-clamping companies. [103970]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have issued a White Paper on the private security industry and propose in it to establish a private security industry authority. This would require wheel clampers to be licensed, and establish a mechanism whereby wheel-clamping firms could be subject to statutory regulations or codes of practice. We are currently considering the responses to the White Paper and will then proceed accordingly.
    Ms Winterton: As I am sure my right hon. Friend will be aware, his answer will delight thousands of motorists who have been the victims of the notorious clamp-and-deliver tactics of unscrupulous cowboy companies. Will he assure me, however, that he will consult not only the wheel-clamping industry, but motoring organisations, the police and local authorities to ensure that any regulation is strong enough to make sure that motorists are no longer subject to the tactics adopted by the modern highway robbers posing as parking enforcers?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has been a redoubtable campaigner against the highway robbers and cowboys in the industry. I can certainly give her the assurance that she seeks.
    Mr. John Bercow: I acknowledge that no one in their right mind would attempt to clamp the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who has been an indefatigable campaigner on this subject. However, will the Minister confirm that, as part of the proposals that the Government intend to introduce, they will speed up the review announced in November by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and

    551
    the Regions of the procedure whereby the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is able to release the personal details of motorists?
    Mr. Boateng: We are working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on all these issues. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that that co-operation will continue.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: May I tell my right hon. Friend that cowboy clampers are still demanding money with menaces in many parts of central Birmingham? In some instances, they are trying to seize jewellery and other valuables from those who are caught in dark areas where people park. I urge my right hon. Friend to make the best possible speed in introducing regulations to encourage the proper firms that exercise their responsibilities sensitively, and to clamp down on and put out of business those who act in a hard way and frighten the living daylights out of people.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority and knowledge on this subject. We are considering a range of options, including criminal sanctions.

    Fire Safety
    Mr. David Crausby: What plans he has to co-ordinate responsibility for the improvement of fire safety. [103974]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Government continue to give priority to community fire safety, and there have been recent welcome reductions both in the number of fires and in deaths from fire. We expect shortly to set up a new fire safety advisory board to help maintain the impetus for improvements in fire safety.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he is aware that there are some 60 complex pieces of legislation governing fire safety. Does he agree that a single fire safety Bill would help further the reductions in fires and deaths from fires and, most important, would further assist fire authorities in shifting the emphasis from cure to prevention?
    Mr. O'Brien: I agree with that. We remain committed to introducing a fire safety Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. One of the aims of that Bill will be to rationalise fire safety legislation, replacing fire safety provisions in various Acts and introducing a general duty of care, to be enforced as far as possible by fire authorities.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend monitor closely some of the aspects of fire reports that are of continuing interest for passengers? Will he, for example, continue to discuss with Eurotunnel the conditions that exist for the safe carriage of passengers, given that there are continuing worries
    552
    about suggestions that official fire forces might be replaced by people who are employed directly by the authority?
    Mr. O'Brien: I will certainly ensure that the Home Office keeps fully informed of the situation regarding the channel tunnel. We want to ensure that all passengers can travel in that tunnel and that all freight can be carried in it in as safe an environment as possible.

    Witness Protection
    Dr. Desmond Turner: What measures he is taking to ensure that witnesses in magistrates courts are adequately protected. [103975]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The victim support scheme will be extending its activities to the magistrates courts. That will be of considerable assistance to witnesses who are victims appearing in magistrates courts. To enable the scheme to do this, we have increased incrementally by 50 per cent. to £19 million the grant made available to it, so that it can establish witness support services in all such courts by April 2002.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As I am sure he is aware, there is a very real and considerable problem of intimidation, not only of those who are victims as well as witnesses, but of witnesses, and not just in magistrates courts but in Crown courts. There are many and constant examples in my constituency. In a serious murder trial, for example, witnesses were literally in fear for their lives. The police do not have the resources to protect every witness, so in areas of my constituency there is a climate of fear: people dare not give evidence or give written statements for fear of reprisals. Will my right hon. Friend please undertake to review witness support and, in particular, protection?
    Mr. Boateng: The police rightly give considerable priority to witness support and protection. We support them in that with the resources necessary to that end. More than that, it was this Government, as my hon. Friend knows, who introduced the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 precisely in order to address the problem that he has identified, which manifests itself in magistrates courts, including in cases of domestic violence and neighbour disputes. It is very important to ensure, as we have, that magistrates courts have a battery of protection that they can extend to witnesses. Without such support, we shall be unable effectively to reduce crime in the way that we are determined to do.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman clearly and rightly takes this matter very seriously. Does he agree that witness intimidation hinders the good order and administration of honourable justice not only in murder cases, to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) drew the House's attention, but in lesser cases? Does the Minister also agree that the only way in which we can prevent that is by ensuring more people on the ground, better planning and

    553
    layout of magistrates courts and the provision of areas where people can be protected while waiting to give evidence?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The security of magistrates courts, in relation to the protection of both victims and witnesses, can be enhanced enormously by proper layout and design—indeed, the number of escapes can be reduced by effective layout and design in cell and dock areas. We are liaising very closely with the Lord Chancellor's Department on existing and new build in order to ensure that we take such matters into account, to protect witnesses and victims and reduce the number of escapes in transit.
    Fiona Mactaggart: As the chair of the all-party voice group, I know how welcome the new witness protection measures are to people with learning disabilities who have been victims of abuse. One issue about which they are particularly concerned is training of the judges and magistrates who decide on cases involving victims who have learning disabilities. Can the Minister tell us of any progress on judicial training?
    Mr. Boateng: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we take judicial training very seriously. We work closely with the Judicial Studies Board, which, as she will appreciate, is an independent body. I assure her that the board, the Home Office and—important in this context— the Department of Health are well aware of the importance of ensuring that special needs are taken into account. That applies to learning disabilities. We have found that those who work for some of the charities engaged in work involving learning disabilities are very often the best people to provide such training. We are actively exploring that avenue in order to ensure that the judiciary gets the benefit of hearing from those who have to work at first hand with such problems.
    No one should be denied justice simply because they are living with a disability. That applies particularly to learning disability. All too often, people are led simply to dismiss the evidence of those who are grappling with disabilities—and doing so with great heroism and courage. Such people deserve, and will get, the full protection of the law.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister appreciate that the problem of petty intimidation of witnesses applies equally in rural areas such as the one I represent? I have seen several cases recently in small villages of people being afraid to come forward with the evidence that the police need. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that fear is exacerbated by the lack of visible police presence, reduction in patrols and the inability successfully to mount prosecutions? Will he
    554
    assure me that every effort will be made to give communities the support that they need to provide the evidence that the police require to put criminals away?
    Mr. Boateng: Both rural and urban areas suffer from this problem. My fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and I work closely on issues of sparsity and criminal justice. The hon. Gentleman's point will certainly be borne in mind.

    Crime Figures (Lancashire)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will make a statement on the latest crime figures for Lancashire. [103976]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The latest figures, covering the 12 months to September 1999, will be published tomorrow. However, I can tell the House that, for the period to March 1999, there was a 10 per cent. reduction in recorded crime in Lancashire.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend, who is a neighbour of mine, for that answer. Is not such news good for Lancashire, and does it not show that the Government's policies are working: the police, local authorities and communities are working to ensure that the mindless minority are not allowed to destroy the lives of the law-abiding majority?
    Mr. Straw: The record of Lancashire police is exemplary. It shows the good sense of the Government's policies in providing full backing to the police and local authorities. I am delighted to note that in a financial settlement that was below the average for the current financial year, Burnley and Padiham are to get 14 more front-line police officers in the next financial year.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The chief constable of Lancashire is to be congratulated on the use of her resources to achieve such an excellent reduction in crime. Does the Home Secretary agree that the fact that the chief constable has now had to make application to the crime-fighting fund for more police officers is a clear indication that her existing police budget is not the source of additional manpower for her fight against crime?
    Mr. Straw: I am delighted that the chief constable of Lancashire is making application to the crime-fighting fund for additional officers. I am also pleased to place on record what Chief Constable Pauline Clare said when the settlement for next year was announced on 26 October:
    "An increase of 4 per cent. is more than we expected and should be sufficient to match anticipated increases in pay and inflation. It should also help us to maintain police officer numbers."

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Government intend to make a statement on the lifting of the European Union arms embargo on Indonesia? That is a contentious issue in the House. The Indonesians owe us £1.5 billion in export credit guarantees. Theirs is still an unstable regime. The United States, by contrast, is refusing to lift the embargo until the Indonesians co-operate with the war crimes investigations, and until the refugees return from West Timor to East Timor. It is important that the Government explain why they have supported the lifting of the embargo, whereas some other EU countries have opposed it.
Madam Speaker: I have to tell the hon. Lady that I have not been informed by a Minister that the Government are to make a statement on that issue. Those on the Treasury Bench—perhaps I should say the Government Front Bench, because some of the media do not know what I mean by Treasury Bench—will have noted the hon. Lady's concern, and we may hear something in due course.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Defence asked to make a statement setting the record right as regards his statement last week on the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on homosexuals in the armed forces? He stated:
"British Governments have always complied with such rulings".—[Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 287.]
As recently as 1988, a British Government derogated unilaterally from a ruling under the European convention on human rights relating to the interrogation of prisoners.
It may be the Secretary of State's intention to come to the House to make it clear that the handling of such issues by earlier Governments is not the problem: it is the fact that the Government decided last year to incorporate the convention into British law—
Madam Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to prolong an exchange that we had last week. That is not a point of order, and he will have to pursue his interest by other means.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any requests for a further statement from the Home Secretary on the condition of General Pinochet? Last Wednesday, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House in which he outlined his view that Senator Pinochet was not fit to stand trial. There seemed to be some discrepancies in that statement, according to a report in The Observer yesterday; and today the Home Secretary has placed in the Library a letter from Professor Grimley Evans.
556
I have an early-day motion asking for the release of the medical information, and there is a request from the Spanish authorities for an independent medical examination of Pinochet. This man is accused of serious crimes against humanity under the terrorism convention, and I believe that it would be right and proper for the Home Secretary to return to the House to make a further statement, so that these discrepancies can be explored.
Madam Speaker: I have not heard that the Home Secretary is to make a statement on that issue today, but if I recall correctly, the last time the Home Secretary was at the Dispatch Box on that issue he said that he hoped to make a statement to the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, you issued guidance to Ministers, in particular, suggesting that answers should be shorter so that we could get through more questions. In giving his first answer today in Home Office questions, the Minister of State took 11 minutes to say precisely nothing, as he seemed incapable of replying to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). May I ask you, Madam Speaker, in the interests of education and training for Ministers, to provide details and data relating to particularly long questions, and guidance so that Ministers' performances may be improved?
Madam Speaker: I must say that I noted that that first question took quite some time. I should like to run seminars on how to answer questions, but also, sometimes, on how to ask them. I hope that the House will note both that those on the Government Front Bench should answer questions far more briskly, and that Back Benchers should take it on themselves to sit in the Tea Room at lunchtime and go through their questions so that they are precise and do not ramble on. Many are Adjournment debates rather than questions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is always very brisk with his questions.
Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I could make the first contribution to your seminar, Madam Speaker, by asking whether you have received a request that Question 36 should be answered. It dealt with the issue of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, and asked whether there had been any progress since our ambassador went to Tripoli.
Madam Speaker: The Home Secretary did not indicate to me today that he had selected that question to answer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done from time to time at the end of Question time. I am afraid that he must bide his time, and perhaps table the question again in another form. He is very ingenious, and no doubt capable of doing that.

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Pensioners
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.37 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that an increase of 75p in April 2000 in the rate of the retirement pension would be inadequate.
  Only in the House of Commons would this motion be controversial. The idea that paying retirement pensioners an extra 75p from next April could possibly be adequate would not occur to most of the pensioners in our constituencies, or, indeed, to non-pensioners. Here, it will divide the House, and, I suspect, may even be defeated. We live in hope.
  Pensioners to whom I have talked—and, I am sure, those to whom many other hon. Members have talked— are insulted by the offer of 75p next April. They are not only insulted, however; they are resigned, which I find all the more worrying. They are resigned because they have reached a point at which they expect nothing better. Sadly, successive Governments have left pensioners feeling that they cannot trust any of the whole lot of them, and that this is no more than they could have expected.
  It is not only the Liberal Democrats and some nationalists who believe that 75p is inadequate. I established on Thursday evening that 83 Labour Members had signed an early-day motion whose wording is identical to this motion. If we exclude the payroll vote, that means that approximately one in four Labour Back Benchers considers 75p inadequate, as well as the many more who think the same, but did not add their names. The Minister may wish to dismiss us as an Opposition party, but I wonder whether he wishes to dismiss the views of about a quarter, or perhaps more, of his own Back Benchers.
  Those 83 hon. Members include former Ministers— and, indeed, one person who served in the Cabinet in this Parliament. We are talking not just about the awkward squad, but about some very senior as well as some newer Members. If the 83 were to vote for the motion along with the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists, the Government's majority would be decimated, provided that one other party voted with us.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Not "decimated".
  Mr. Webb: Yes, literally decimated. The Government's majority would be reduced from about 170 to about 17.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The definition of "decimation" is reducing by a tenth, not to a tenth.
  Mr. Robathan: Exactly, Professor.
  Mr. Webb: I am prepared to argue that it means reducing to a tenth, but I will not press the point.
  558
  The crucial question is, how will Her Majesty's official Opposition vote? We wait with bated breath to find out. Given that, had they been in power, 75p is all that pensioners would have got, one would expect them to vote against the motion. So on the ground that the Conservative party does not actually have a pensions policy, it should abstain. However, on the ground that the opportunist thing to do would be to rip up what it used to do and to say the opposite, it should vote with us; so there are all those possibilities. This afternoon, we look forward to finding out what the Tories will do.
  The motion is about far more than the uprating. It is about whether the basic state pension has a future at all. The critical point is this: in a year when the Government had spare cash not just for everything else, but for pensioners and, indeed, for pensioner incomes, they thought of every way to spend it except putting it on the state pension. If they will not put it on the state pension in a year when they have plenty of money, will they ever if times are hard? If we do not stop the rot now, there will be no pension left to save.
  To give an idea of how extraordinary the position in which we find ourselves is, I consulted the Library about what has happened to the state pension not just in the past 20 years, but since the war, relative to average earnings and relative to the poverty line. The results were astonishing and cast new light on what has been happening in the welfare state since the war.
  When the pension came in, it represented about 14 per cent. of average earnings. That rose to 19 per cent. in the mid-1960s and stayed at around 20 per cent. until the early 1980s, when Mrs. Thatcher got her hands on it. Now it is about 15 per cent. In 30 years or so, it will be just 7 per cent. Why does that matter? It matters because pensions are about smoothing the transition from paid employment to retirement. If pensions lose touch with the earnings that they replace, they will achieve nothing.
  I give one example. I have said that pensions were about 15 per cent. of average earnings. Hon. Members earn a minimum of £47,000 a year. Fifteen per cent. of that is roughly £7,000. Could any of us imagine retiring on £7,000? Clearly not. Of course, the pension in absolute terms is not £7,000: it is £3,500.
  That is what we are increasingly condemning our fellow citizens to. It will get worse, not better because, by the time the Government state second pension comes in, the basic state pension will be half of income at the poverty line, or, in today's money, about £39 a week. The Government like to describe the state pension as the foundation of income in old age, but it is clearly a sinking foundation.
  Not so long ago, the Labour party used to think that pensions should have something to do with earnings. This morning, I was leafing through Hansard from 13 April 1983. I came across the Labour spokesman's views. Succinctly and powerfully, he said:
  "Although pensions being tied to prices might look good for electioneering slogans, it is catastrophic for people who are now aged between 30 and 50 who believe that they are paying into a scheme that will provide them with a decent pension. That will produce major problems in the future."—[Official Report, 13 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 882.]
  What would happen under a Blairite regime to a firebrand left-winger such as that? Surely he would not find a place in the Government; he certainly would not as pensions

  559
  Minister. It is a funny old world, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) would agree.
  Today, we are considering not just the value of the pension relative to earnings. Often, the Government will say that the pension is unaffordable. In last Tuesday's debate, they came up with some huge figure—tens of billions of pounds—on linking the pension to earnings and said that that was clearly unaffordable, but the answers that I have from the Library show that, in the 30 to 40 years after the war, successive Labour and Tory Governments not only linked the pension to earnings, but did vastly better. The pension rose from 13 per cent. of average earnings just after the war to 20 per cent. in the early 1980s—hugely better than earnings indexation.
  Those 30 to 40 years were not years of unparalleled boom, yet successive Governments found the money to do that. How can it be that a prosperous country such as ours cannot find the money to do it now, when successive post-war Governments did? Could it be to do with political priorities and the fact that, incredibly, the basic pension is still not a priority?
  We must consider a second aspect of the pension's value—its value relative to the poverty line. Although the Minister is very fond of saying that the pension was never intended to be enough to live on, when it was introduced—when it was worth 108 per cent. of the national assistance line—it was exactly that. If one had only a pension, one was not entitled to a top-up, because the pension was supposed to be enough to live on.
  For most of the post-war period, the pension has been worth about 95 per cent. of the poverty line, or just a shade below. In the past year or two, however, there has been a drastic fall in its value. For someone who is newly retired, the pension is now worth 86 per cent. of the poverty line; amazingly, for an 80-year-old, it is 79 per cent. of the poverty line—which is a full £18 per week short of the poverty line. The consequence has been a huge and growing gap between the pension and the poverty line.
  How is the gap to be filled? According to Ministers, for most people, it is to be filled by voluntary savings.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have been listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I should tell him that—I say this in the Chamber, as it is a contempt of the House to mislead it—last year, from my 69,000 constituents, we received only six letters complaining about the level of the state pension. With the introduction of the pension guarantee, much of the argument on raising the state pension has effectively been destroyed. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for seven minutes, but has not even mentioned that.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I shall mention it. Furthermore, I think that he has received so few letters on the issue because people do not think that there is any point in sending one. As I said, pensioners do not trust any of us on the issue because they have been let down by so many of us.
  The gap between the basic pension and the poverty line has to be filled. However, if it is to be filled by people's voluntary savings, and if they will receive only a
  560
  means-tested top-up—which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) just mentioned— why should they bother to save?
  Currently, someone retiring with £40,000 in savings should not have bothered to save that money, as it will buy him or her a pension top-up and payment of rent. The way things are going, if we retire with £100,000, we need not have bothered; expressed as a lump sum, it is only the gap between the basic pension and the poverty line. Why should anyone save in such circumstances?
  The phrase in the Government's amendment to the motion that we should support
  "the Government's commitment to letting pensioners benefit more from their savings"
  is ludicrous. The Government are discouraging savings with every step that they take.
  Why is this year's pension rise so low—only 1.1 per cent? In the year to September, the inflation rate was precisely 1.1 per cent.—whence the pension increase of 75p was derived. The increase will give pensioners another £39 a year, to meet all the price rises facing them. However, let us consider their various bills.
  Last April, I tabled a question on council tax increases, and was told that, net of all rebates and benefits, the typical pensioner had to pay an extra £40 in council tax. As the same funding formula will be used this April, the increase could well be similar. Paying that one increase will thus require all a pensioner's pension increase, leaving him or her nothing to pay for other price increases. As the motion states, the 1.1 per cent. increase is inadequate because it does not reflect the rise in pensioners' cost of living. However, the situation is even worse.
  Inflation was low because mortgage rates and interest rates were decreasing. The consequence of those decreases has not only been a poor pension increase, but decreasing savings incomes for pensioners. Pensioners were therefore hit with the double whammy of decreasing incomes, caused by decreasing interest rates, and a poor pensions uprating.
  It is one thing to say that 75p is not enough, but another to suggest what should be done. There are two aspects to our proposals. First, as pensioners are buying a different basket of goods, indexation should relate to pensioners' true cost of living and not to the average cost of living of the population overall. The Government should therefore construct a proper pensioners' price index. Although there is already a pensioners' price index, incredibly, it does not include housing. It therefore does not provide a proper basis for indexing pensions.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will determine pensioners' true living costs and index pensions on that basis.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I support the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly on the need for a relevant index. Does he accept that that would not in itself make up for the loss that pensioners have suffered since 1980–81, when the change was made? Does he also accept that we need to bridge that loss for pensioners as far as we can and as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I was going to describe the second part of the package.

  561
  The oldest pensioners have lost most from 20 years of price indexing the basic state pension. Those who retired when the link was broken have had nothing but price indexation for 20 years. Inflation has eroded their savings. Many of them are elderly widows on low incomes. That is why our party wants substantial additional resources to be focused on the oldest pensioners—the over-75s and over-80s. We want a targeted approach that does not rely on means testing, but which would help to deal with the problem that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
  The hon. Member for Workington referred to how the Government's other policies have helped pensioners. Those policies are listed at considerable length in the amendment. Let us take a look at some of them. The amendment stretches the truth considerably on the tax guarantee, saying that it
  "now means that two thirds of pensioners now pay no income tax".
  The use of the word "now" twice is proof that nothing has happened. One would expect the number of pensioners paying income tax next year to be only a fraction of the number the year the Government came to office, but the facts show that the figure is the same. So much for a tax guarantee. The Government can guarantee only that as many pensioners will be paying tax as ever.
  What about the winter fuel money? It might as well be called the winter biscuit money or the winter tea money, because it has nothing to do with fuel. Clearly it is welcome, but why was it not put on the pension and related benefits? When the Government had £500 million—or whatever the figure was—for pensioners, why did it go on winter fuel money? Winter fuel money does not have to be indexed, so next year it can be £100, the same as this year. Who knows whether a future Government will carry on with it? Have we voted for a winter fuel payments Act? Of course we have not. The change did not need primary legislation because it is a social fund payment. I wonder whether hon. Members who are older than 60 realise that they are the beneficiaries of social fund payments. That is how easy the measure was to introduce and that is how easy it will be to do away with. Had the money been put on the pension, it would at least have had to be indexed. Although it might have been phased out slowly, it would have been better on the pension.
  The Government sometimes say that our proposal for age additions is poorly targeted, but what else is paying £100 tax free to everyone in the country older than 60? It is scarcely a targeted strategy. The Government are guilty of inconsistency.
  At least the Government have listened to us about the additional needs of older pensioners when it comes to television licences. Their policy is welcome to that extent, although there seems to be no explanation of why pensioners are not being given the money to spend for themselves.
  The minimum income guarantee is a good benchmark, but to coin a new Labour phrase, it should be for the few, not the many. It should be a residual measure, catching the few who fall through the safety net. It should not be a mass approach for hundreds of thousands of pensioners. The Government tell us that in 2047 all will be well, but we have slightly more urgent priorities. Critically,
  562
  one third of those entitled to the so-called guarantee do not get it. Money on the pension would reach them, but the so-called guarantee is not guaranteed.
  Mr. John Bercow: On the subject of effective targeting, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be very wise, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recommended, to abolish the 65-year age restriction for claimants of invalid care allowance and the carers premium, thereby helping 55,000 of the poorest pensioners in the country?
  Mr. Webb: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which is why I am curious as to why the Leader of the Opposition did not do that when he was a social security Minister.
  The objection to such increases in the pension is usually that they would not benefit the poorest pensioners. It is sometimes said that if extra money is put on the pension it will just come off their income support, but that ignores three important, deserving and needy groups of pensioners, all of whom would benefit from a pension rise.
  The first group are the 750,000 pensioners—as estimated by the Government—who are entitled to income support but do not claim it, typically missing out on £1,000 a year. They would benefit in full from a pension rise, and they are the poorest pensioners in the land, bar none. In addition, there are 600,000 pensioners who live below the income support line but who have capital above the measly £8,000 threshold. I should point out that £8,000 is not very much life savings. Most of us would be concerned if we started our retirement with only £8,000 accumulated. However, that is enough to deny someone the so-called guarantee. Those people would get a pension rise in full.
  The third and final group—the group who write to me most, from all around the country—are those who have small amounts of savings, taking them beyond the reach of the means-tested benefits system. They get nothing from the so-called guarantee; they get pension rises in full. If the Government really believe, as they say in the amendment, in
  "letting pensioners benefit more from their savings"
  they will reward those people who have saved, and not penalise them.
  How would our proposals—pensioner price indexation and extra money for the older pensioners—be paid for? Has anyone looked at the value of the national insurance fund recently? The balance is getting on for £15 billion, and the annual surplus is in excess of £1 billion. The package that I have just proposed would cost about half that. These are modest demands, yet the vast amounts in the national insurance fund suggest that the money is there. It is about priorities. The specific figures that we have identified are a £5 increase for those over 80 and a £3 increase for those over 75—as a down payment, with more to come.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that we need to be doing more for pensioners. However, did I correctly understand him to say that there is a £15 billion surplus, half of which would be taken to fund his party's proposals? Could he clarify that?
  Mr. Webb: I apologise if that was unclear. The balance is £15 billion, and there is an surplus of more than

  563
  £1 billion every year. The package would cost half the annual surplus—about £0.5 billion. In other words, the balance in the account would continue to go up even our proposals were implemented.
  I have outlined what I believe should be done. It is not enough for Opposition parties—as some are wont to do— to say how terrible things are without putting forward a credible alternative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like the Liberal Democrats."] We have proposed what we would do today.
  The motion is simply about this April's pension rise. As regards the basic state pension, the Government have said that they will carry on with what the Tories did. Pensioners will get 75p this April unless the House can convince the Government that that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Frank Field: I was one of those who willingly signed the relevant early-day motion, and I will continue to do so in future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not the only Labour Member to sign it. While one is pleased and proud with what the Government have done up to now, many of us had hoped that the Government would be doing even more by the time of the general election. That is why we signed the motion.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support, and we share his hope that the Government will do more before the election. We would like them to do something this April, rather than let pensioners have another year of inadequate incomes.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has expressed the views of the parties, and he answered the question from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). What is the view of the pensioners' movement and pensioners' organisations? In my experience, this is one of the two main pensioners' issues that all the pensioner groups make the most representations about. They are livid that the Government do not understand how measly their proposal for this year is.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend is right. Not long ago, I addressed the national pensioners' convention in Blackpool—an audience of 1,500 pensioners. They are calling for earnings indexation and a substantial increase in the pension for older pensioners, in line with our arguments. We are finding that our arguments are gaining resonance, and pensioners are concerned that people are out of touch.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. In his assessment of pensioners' living standards, has he made any calculation of the increasing costs imposed on the elderly in day centre and home help charges and all the other charges made by local authorities of all parties throughout the country? Obviously, those charges affect the living standards of a specific group of people who used to have to rely on an inadequate pension and now have to rely on an inadequate pension minus the charges.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the sort of item that should appear in the
  564
  index of goods that we take into account when we consider what should happen to pensions, even though it has no impact on the retail prices index.
  In a year in which the Government had money for pensioners, they put nothing into the pension. A sentence of death is hanging over the state pension. By our votes this evening, we have a chance to bring it a reprieve.
  4 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the Government inherited a situation where increasing numbers of pensioners were living in poverty and where, if nothing had been done, one in three people would have retired on to means-tested benefits by the middle of this century; congratulates the Government on the start it has made in dealing with these problems; applauds in particular the introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee, benefiting one and a half million pensioner households, and welcomes the Government's commitment to raising it in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament and to conducting a take-up campaign to ensure that pensioners get what they are entitled to; supports the Government's commitment to helping pensioners, including the restoration of free eye tests and the new winter fuel payments, which benefit over seven million pensioner households and will be paid every year from now on; welcomes the Government's commitment to extending further help with pensioners' needs, including free television licences for people aged 75 or over from next autumn and the extension of concessionary public transport fare schemes; supports the Government's commitment to letting pensioners benefit more from their savings through the minimum tax guarantee which now means that two thirds of pensioners now pay no income tax; and welcomes the Government's plans to reform pensions, through the new stakeholder pensions and second state pension, so that everyone who puts in a full life of working or caring will in due course be able to retire on an income above means-tested levels.".
  I welcome this debate—one of the key debates for the Liberal Democrats. The subject, which they have chosen, is important to the Liberal Democrats here and to the Government, but it clearly not important to 72 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members, as they have not bothered us with their attendance: a factor that they can explain in due course to their constituents.
  Mr. Tom Brake: Cheap.
  Mr. Rooker: Oh, yes. We will have some cheapness today.
  I regret the fact that I shall have to use some figures and statistics today; I shall try to keep them to a minimum but, in rebutting some of the points made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) it is inevitable that I shall have to use some. As the hon. Gentleman said, the motion deals only with the supposed inadequacy of the 75p increase. The rest of what he said is not in the motion. It is on the record, but that is not the same as presenting a motion to the House that can be debated.
  The hon. Gentleman did not tell us what is quite clear: that the Liberal Democrats have changed their policy since the general election. We make no apology for fulfilling our manifesto commitment—and indeed going beyond it. It is well known that the commitment on which we were elected was to use the basic state pension as the building blocks of pensioner income and to raise it at least in line with prices. That has been done for three years.

  565
  On page 49, the Liberal Democrat manifesto—I am not taking this out of context; I shall quote the whole sentence—said:
  "The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices."
  That is exactly what the 75p is. The manifesto also said:
  "We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below the income support level. This will be indexed to earnings".
  That is exactly what the minimum income guarantee is. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said on more than one occasion, it will continue to be index-linked to earnings.
  The Government have put into effect two key planks of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and we are being held to account and complained against today with regard to one of them. I am not sure whether there has been a change in Lib Dem policy.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Yes.
  Mr. Rooker: Oh, there has.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No, I must make a bit of progress. I have not actually started my speech yet. I made those introductory remarks to get the tone of the debate right on the matters on which we are being attacked, one of which is pensioner incomes.
  The hon. Member for Northavon sometimes talked about the basic state pension and sometimes about total pensioner incomes, although he never quite put it that way. If any right hon. or hon. Member knows a pensioner who lives on an income of £66.75 a week—the basic state pension—and who has no capital over £3,000, it is their bounden duty to ensure that he or she gets the benefit of the minimum income guarantee. Everywhere I hold meetings—including pensioners' convention meetings—I say, "Hands up, anybody who is getting only £66.75." I know that that is slightly unfair because, by their nature, such meetings may not be attended by the poorest, but so far, no one has put their hand up.
  The Government are deliberately targeting resources on the poorest pensioners, but the reality of pensioner incomes is different. The average income for a pensioner couple now, on 1996–97 figures—the latest ones, which were published in 1998 in the pensioner income series, although we will have more up-to-date figures by the end of the month—is £248 a week. The average income for a single pensioner is £129 a week.
  It is true that there is a difference with age. For couples in which the male is aged over 75, the average income is £226 a week, and for the others it is £259 a week. It is a fact that, as pensioners get older, their income falls. Among single pensioners, the average income for men is £141 a week, and for women it is £126. It is a myth that the generality of pensioners exist on £66.75 a week.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: No one is saying that.
  Mr. Rooker: The whole thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Northavon was directed towards perpetuating that myth.
  Mr. Corbyn: My right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard my intervention in the speech by the
  566
  hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). In the assessments made by my right hon. Friend's Department, what examination has been made of the cost of living index as it relates to pensioners in terms of transport costs, increased charges imposed by local authorities and the loss of former public facilities that now have to be paid for privately? All the evidence that I have seen suggests that pensioners are becoming significantly worse off because of cuts in local services.
  Mr. Rooker: I say to my hon. Friend genuinely that the whole range of income is taken into account. I am giving average figures, which are the only ones any of us can give unless we use an individual example. In many ways, we succeed or fail in this place by giving individual examples of our constituents, but when we make a global assessment, we have to use averages based on pensioner incomes and expenditure. The factors that my hon. Friend mentioned are taken into account. We must remember that averages can be misleading. However, that does not alter the fact that the figures that I have given show that average pensioner incomes are now totally different to what they were 20 years ago.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Minister understands that, even given the Government's present policy of the minimum income guarantee or the policy that he is right to say that we had at the last election— although we have moved on since—of a minimum basic income, a minority of pensioners do not get anything above the basic state pension. Will he confirm that there has never been a 100 per cent. take-up and that there probably never will be? If we are to meet the needs of the poorest pensioners, we must do something other than keeping the pension down and getting pensioners to make up the difference by applying for other benefits. Many people refuse to apply for those other benefits because they fear means testing and see it as degrading.
  Mr. Rooker: I accept the point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have three sets of benefits. We have the means-tested income benefits and the minimum income guarantee, for which we will shortly announce a Government-led, national take-up campaign. It will be a unique campaign for a Government to run.
  However, many other benefits are not income related, yet their take-up remains a problem. For example, attendance allowance take-up by pensioners is about 40 per cent. of what we think that it should be. It is difficult to drive a take-up campaign on benefits that are not income related, but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right: the Government have a moral obligation and duty to target resources on the poorest pensioners. The campaign will cost several million pounds, and we shall announce the details shortly.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend gave some interesting statistics earlier that may surprise many people outside the House. Will not the figures for 1996–97 be substantially higher than those that he gave? Are there any projections about what those figures will be? All hon. Members want the state pension to be increased substantially, but the amount of correspondence

  567
  that we receive on the level of the base pension has diminished. We need more accurate statistics that show the truth of what is going on in the country.
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right to say that the figures will have changed from those that I quoted. However, the new pensioner income series figures for 1997–98 will be available before the end of the month, and the Department of Social Security will publish a paper on pensioner incomes shortly afterwards.
  I will not go into the details, but a pensioner in my constituency made an inquiry of me last Friday evening. I had not met the gentleman before but, in the course of our conversation, I happened to see the pension forecast made for him just before he retired in May last year. His basic state pension was £66.75. He had a full, 100 per cent. national insurance pension after working in the engineering industry. The salaries that he had received were not massive, as he was not involved in highly skilled work. He had almost £6 in graduated pension from the system operating between 1961 and 1975, and his SERPS pension was well over £50.
  My constituent's income was therefore more than £120—almost double the basic state pension. That is typical of three quarters of the people who are retiring now: they do not retire only on the basic state pension, as they also have the benefit of SERPS and the other pension. I shall deal with those receiving only the basic state pension shortly.
  Average pensioner incomes have risen in the past 20 years, but the gap between the poorest pensioners and the most well-off has widened significantly. The incomes of the least well-off 20 per cent. of single pensioners have risen by only 28 per cent. in real terms, whereas the incomes of the richest 20 per cent. of pensioners have increased by 76 per cent. in real terms.
  The main reason for the improvement in many pensioners' incomes has been the growth in incomes from occupational pensions and from investment. In 1979— three years before the left-wing firebrand's remarks referred to by the hon. Member for Northavon—43 per cent. of pensioners had occupational pensions. By 1996–97, that figure had risen to 65 per cent. Occupational pensions have been a massive success in this country, and the credit for that goes to all the parties and individuals involved. The contribution from Governments can be seen in the tax advantages associated with the schemes.
  Since 1979, there has been an increase in real income from occupational pensions of 162 per cent. That is a very substantial increase, and the average amount of investment income received by all pensioners has doubled in real terms. The proportion of pensioners dependent on means-tested state benefits was 40 per cent. in 1996–97, including 28 per cent. of those who were recently retired. So about a quarter of today's pensioners are coming out of a lifetime of work on to the means test. That is a serious situation, which no Government can ignore. There is an overwhelming case for ensuring that we take effective action in respect of those pensioners, and that is what we have tried to do.
  568
  I suppose, when I look around the Chamber, that very few understand more than I do the feelings about the links between the basic state pension and prices rather than earnings.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Rooker-Wise amendment.
  Mr. Rooker: It has nothing to do with that.
  When that link was introduced by the previous Labour Government—much to their credit—it operated for only four years, and was calculated wrongly for three of those four years. However, there is no doubt that it gave pensioners a real increase in the basic state pension.
  Of course, there was no state earnings-related pension then: SERPS effectively started accumulating only from 1978. We were in a different situation. Nobody could have given the kind of total incomes that pensioners receive today, even in the values of 1979.
  There were many years in which the basic state pension did not increase at all—1956, 1957, 1959 and 1960. It should have gone up in May 1964, but it did not; it should have gone up in November 1970, but it did not. I do not want to make a party political point, but a Conservative Government were in power on every one of those dates. So it was not the norm to have an annual increase and in some years—it happened in 1975 in particular—there were two increases because the Labour Government needed to make up the gap that had occurred before they came to power.
  There are various beliefs that pensions have risen every year, that they have always been linked to earnings and that the basic state pension has always been enough to live on. Those are all myths; they are untrue.
  Mr. Webb: Does the Minister accept the point that I made based on the Library's figures? History shows that, since the war, the pension has not simply been earnings-indexed but has risen as a share of average earnings from 14 to 20 per cent. The Minister may be saying that pensioners should be grateful for an annual increase but, since the war, Governments have done better than providing earnings indexation over a period of decades. Why is that so impossible now?
  Mr. Rooker: That completely ignores the example that I gave from my constituency of someone who has just retired and has SERPS of more than £50 a week. Of course, those figures are based on the basic state pension—anyone can make those calculations, because we know the figures. They are universal, as long as people have the full 100 per cent. Succeeding Governments—and the graduated pension, from 1961 to 1975, was introduced by a Conservative Government—attempted to build on the basic state pension so that people received an amount that related to their earnings. That was an important element, but is never taken into account in statistics based on the basic state pension.
  I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is valid only if the basic state pension is total pensioner income. I refuse to accept that. One must consider the total pensioner income in the round, which is why Richard Crossman and Sir Keith Joseph, along with previous Ministers, attempted to make that break, to build on the basic state pension. Therefore, it is inevitable that there is fluctuation when prices are compared with earnings,

  569
  because one is looking at a moving target, based on individual circumstances. So, although I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, I do not think that they paint a true picture, or do any service to pensioners—either pensioners of the future, who are thinking about saving for a pension, or today's pensioners.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman's intervention is as good as his previous one, then yes.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that he will agree that, notwithstanding the importance of improving provision, it is of the essence that the existing system should be efficiently administered. Following the breakdown of NIRS2, which deprived thousands of pensioners of their legitimate entitlements, does he recall the "Dear colleague" letter of 11 September 1998 from the Secretary of State which said that the problem would be resolved in the next couple of weeks? However, on 28 January 1999, the right hon. Gentleman was forced to admit that it would be many months before the problem was completely resolved. Has it now been resolved, in each and every case?
  Mr. Rooker: No. As I said in answering a question last week, the latest information from the Benefits Agency is that 83,000 cases are outstanding and we expect all to be settled this year. NIRS2 has been bad for pensioners— some have not been paid correctly, although some have been overpaid. That massive computer system—bought on the cheap by the Conservative Government—is crucial to many of our reforms. Bereavement allowances, state second pensions and stakeholder pensions all depend on the success of NIRS2, as does pensions forecasting.
  There is no quick fix for the computer system, and delays, though regrettable, are inevitable. A quick fix would be irresponsible given the high dependency on the system of many policies, benefits payments and contracted-out rebates. We hope to settle the 83,000 cases—some underpayments, some overpayments—by the end of the year.
  Let me turn to the costs implied by the hon. Member for Northavon in his speech; of course, no costs were mentioned in the Liberal Democrat motion, which makes no proposal. Increasing retirement pensions—and, we should not forget, linked benefits—by the average earnings index would cost £1 billion net in 2000, and £8 billion in 2010. I answered questions on this subject within the last week and in November, so I almost expect an intervention at this point. The single pension will go up to £67.50 a week in April but, if it had been linked to earnings or prices—whichever was higher—since 1979, when the link was broken, it would be £97, a difference of almost £20. The cost of bridging that gap in one go would be £13 billion net, including the additional cost of benefits linked to the retirement pension.
  We have just under 11 million pensioners. By 2030, there will be almost 14 million, so the gross cost of even a modest change in April would be £30 billion a year by then. Much of that money would go to well-off pensioners. I do not claim that those on the average are well off, but they are much better off than people on
  570
  income support, who would benefit less. That cannot be right. We do not apologise for using the basic state pension as a building block. No one is expected to live on that pension alone. For anyone who has no savings, there is other provision, such as the minimum income guarantee.
  One of our traditional aims has been to concentrate help on the least well-off, while managing the system so that those who can do things for themselves do so without Government involvement. Since the second world war, the lack of a consensus on pensions has meant that no Government have been able to build for the long term. I do not say that people cannot trust Governments—that would be wrong, and unfair to Governments of both parties. However, the more provision people make for themselves via funded schemes and occupational pensions, the more secure they are bound to feel, given the history of pension provision.
  By 2001–02, we shall spend £4 billion more in real terms on pensioners. We make no apology for that, as much of the money will be targeted at the poorest pensioners. Some 1.5 million pensioners are benefiting from the increase to the minimum income guarantee by £160 a year in real terms. Pensioner couples aged more than 80 and on income support will be £455 a year better off, in real terms, after this April's increase—that is more than £8 a week. The actions that we have taken will ensure that as many people as possible receive that extra benefit. We have not merely based our actions on research, but have piloted schemes to find the best way of organising the take-up of that benefit.
  We are examining the rules on capital. Some of the points that the hon. Member for Northavon made about capital and savings are right. Our commitment is that, before the end of this Parliament, we shall have done something about capital limits, which have been frozen for so long. That is unfair on many pensioners—whether the limits are £3,000, £8,000 or £16,000. We shall deal with the matter—it is in the package.
  However, it is true that part of the package is not about the least well-off—we make no apology about the winter fuel payments. To put that money into people's hands before Christmas, we needed a cut-off date in September, in order to pay £100 per pensioner household—indeed the amount will now be paid to all men and women aged over 60. If we had undertaken means-testing for the payments, it would have cost us £100 to organise each payment. That is why we acted in that way. The money is not targeted in the sense suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because we consider that it forms part of our policy of ensuring that the wider pensioner community should benefit from the economic performance of the country.
  The same argument applies to television licences—free to the over-75s, but not means-tested. That is a further demonstration that we are spreading more of the country's income around the pensioner community.
  I realise that the time for debate is short, so I shall come to a conclusion. The minimum tax guarantee and other measures have taken 200,000 pensioners out of tax, and two thirds of pensioners pay no income tax at all. The VAT cut on fuel affected everybody, but fuel is a disproportionately high part of pensioner expenditure, so pensioners also benefited from that cut.

  571
  One of the most despicable and cheapskate policies of the Conservative Government was the removal of free eye tests for pensioners. We have reintroduced those tests.
  There is a new home energy efficiency scheme for those over-60s who receive an income-related benefit. The maximum grant will be increased from the present £315 to £2,000. That will be of substantial benefit to about 460,000 households over the first two years, 280,000 of which will be households whose members are aged more than 60.
  We could develop that package. However, we make no apology; we have stuck to our manifesto commitment. We have ensured that the extra resources are targeted on the poorest pensioners, who are substantially better off than they were when the Government came to power. We know that, over the totality, general pensioner incomes are much higher than the basic state pension. To ignore that fact does an absolute disservice to pensioners—as did the contribution of the hon. Member for Northavon.
  4.28 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to hear the Minister of State lauding the achievements of the Conservative Government over 18 years, as many pensioners now retire on considerably more than the basic state pension. On the other hand, it is a shame that we had to listen to a typical Liberal motion. Many of us who have fought the Liberals in many elections will recognise the technique. The measure sounds supportive and costs a huge amount. As we discovered during the debate, their minds were changed halfway through the formation of their policy and they have ducked all the decisions.
  The motion does not say what Liberal Democrat policy is, although the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) tried hard to explain it. It smacks of the luxury of perpetual opposition, as do so many of their promises. They promised extra police officers and to double child benefit. They would take child support back to the courts—that would be £800 million. As we discovered this afternoon, they would use up the national insurance fund surplus. That would have a direct effect on the retail prices index.
  All those measures would add significantly—
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete what I was saying on this fairly substandard Liberal motion, I shall be delighted to give way.
  Those combined changes would add a huge amount to public spending, which I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) will be keen to rein back when he does his sums for his Budget statement.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Lady completes her litany of past mistakes, will she explain why, in 1980, the Conservative Government broke the link with earnings? Ever since, the pension has been deteriorating as a proportion of earnings. The whole pensioner community
  572
  feels robbed by 18 years of Conservative government. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that she would reinstate the link with earnings, as many of us would wish to do?
  Mrs. Lait: Interestingly, we have heard the Minister explain why the Government are not restoring that link. Although the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) probably believes that everyone in Islington retires on only the basic state pension, as a result of our changes two thirds of all pensioners now retire on considerably more than that.
  We have heard from the Government this afternoon great appreciation of everything that has been done in the past 18 years. The Minister expressed an intention to continue many of the things that we introduced. I should think that it is a great comfort to many pensioners that the Government have not yet tinkered with many of them. However, just last week—it was very opportune— I received, from a constituent who has given me permission to use his name, a critique of the 75p by which the state pension is being increased. Mr. Frederick Pemberton, who lives in Beckenham, had written earlier complaining about it and then produced a critique of the reply that he received from the Department. He starts:
  "This so-called Promised Land.
  Five per cent. VAT on fuel. This VAT cut is not specifically for pensioners, but for all households.
  Twenty million pounds to improve cataract service. Fifty million pounds to boost cardiac care. Again the two services are for all the country.
  Concessionary bus passes. As I live in one of the London boroughs I receive a free bus pass. This scheme has been in existence for at least 12 years.
  The home energy efficiency scheme and locks and bolts. This applies to 150,000 pensioners. That works out at 0.13 per cent. of pensioners in the country. As a home owner, I do not qualify."
  Mr. Pemberton continues:
  "Ten pounds for the free eyesight test. As pensioners only purchase spectacles once in five years, this generous grant works out at 4p a week.
  Free television licences. Thousands of homes in the country have a pensioner over the age of 75 living with them. They are the ones who will also benefit from the free licence."
  He went on to say that his and his wife's income will increase by 1.1 per cent. plus the winter fuel payment, which makes a total of £3.40 a week.
  Mr. Pemberton's letter reflects the comments that I have heard from many pensioners. It would be wise for everyone to recognise that even affluent areas such as Bromley contain pockets of real deprivation and that pensioners, as reflected in that letter, feel badly let down.
  Mr. John Cryer: Does this mean that the hon. Lady wants to take away the free eye tests that the Government have given pensioners?
  Mrs. Lait: I was merely pointing out that it has a marginal effect on any pensioner's income.
  The minimum income guarantee, from which we hope that many pensioners can benefit—including the 600,000 who currently do not—is an extension of means testing, with all the problems that go with that. It is only for people on income support. Pensioners with any savings

  573
  do not qualify. [Interruption.] If that is not correct, I would be more than happy for the Minister to let me know.
  Mr. Rooker: I will correct what the hon. Lady said, because people listen to what we say in this place. She said that if a pensioner has any savings, he does not qualify. That is not true. There are capital limits of £3,000 and £8,000, and I have said that we shall address those figures—by implication, raising them—before the end of this Parliament.
  Mrs. Lait: I am delighted to learn that people with savings of £3,000 and £8,000 will benefit from the minimum income guarantee. However, 600,000 people do not claim the benefit for reasons that the much vaunted research has produced, but which many of us have known for many years. All the Government have done is waste money on research that has told us what we already know. People find the process of claiming for means-testing off-putting and they do not like the stigma attached to it. We have been aware of that, as have the Government, for many years. However, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Government will carry out yet more research to find out how they can best sell the minimum income guarantee. It will cost several millions more pounds to try to ensure that those 600,000 people benefit from it.
  As I understand it, the recommendations in the report that was published on 13 December said that the most sensible, and probably the cheapest, way of ensuring that everyone knows about the minimum income guarantee is to write confidentially to all those who may be eligible for it. If it will cost several million pounds for the 600,000 pensioners who do not claim, it would be interesting to examine the administrative costs of the scheme.
  We fundamentally object to the minimum income guarantee because it is a disincentive to save. Like the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), I spent a large part of last year on the Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which introduced the stakeholder pension. Tomorrow, we shall start to consider the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which will introduce the state second pension.
  As I understand it, both pensions will be worth what people can already claim under the minimum income guarantee and housing and council tax benefits. If that is so, I will be dissatisfied. Who on a tight budget and with a small income will put money into either the stakeholder pension or the state second pension? Why bother? If people have to manage on a tight budget and the kids need shoes, who will put money into a pension? I have yet to receive an answer to that question from the Government, but it must be dealt with. There is no reason for people in such circumstances to buy into either of those pensions.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I trigger the hon. Lady's memory? Does she recall the great debates of the 1970s when Labour pioneered the state earnings-related pension scheme? That was 30 years ago, and the whole country looked forward to substantial pensions well into the future and past the millennium. However, does she remember what happened in the 1980s when I sat on the Opposition Benches and we watched SERPS being progressively
  574
  undermined and destroyed by a Conservative Government? Why does not she refer to what happened in the 1980s?
  Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that SERPS has been made affordable, as have private occupational pensions. They are just as important because more and more people wish to save outwith the Government's provision. They realise that, if they have a private pension over which they have control, they are not at the whim—dare I say it—of politicians. I support them entirely. It is infinitely better to be in control of one's own money.
  Kali Mountford: Can the hon. Lady cast her mind back as far as last week and answer the question that was put to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)? If it is not possible for people to contribute to the state second pension or the stakeholder pension, how can people with earnings of less than £9,500 a year possibly afford a private pension scheme?
  Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady has entirely missed the point. The state second pension and the stakeholder pension are not sufficiently attractive to encourage people to save. That is because of the package of benefits that they would otherwise receive. However, I have been generous with my time. To allow many other hon. Members to speak, I hope that I shall be allowed to draw my remarks to a relatively speedy conclusion.
  The Minister of State referred to the problems that pensioners are having as a result of NIRS2 computer failings. I am reassured that those failings will be cleared up at some time during the coming year, as the Benefits Agency hopes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has said, that is a year late already.
  Given the catalogue of problems that pensioners have faced, does anyone blame them for not wanting to be involved with the Government? They have been hit by advance corporation tax, and future pensioners are now realising the cost. Only last week, my hon. Friend pointed out in social security questions that the Manchester local authority will have to find an extra £30 million. Cornwall will have to find an extra £35 million and Staffordshire an extra £75 million. That will have an effect on pensioners' council tax, which is already increasing because the Government are downloading their stealth taxes on to local authorities.
  Pensioners are being hit also by the fuel duty increase. They wait and wait for their NHS appointments and operations. Poor pensioners who have saved in shares can no longer reclaim tax. They are now hit by a 75p increase in their pension, which they think is measly. To add insult to injury, the Department of Social Security is saving itself money. It estimated a 1.3 per cent. increase in the state pension but it is paying out only 1.1 per cent. It could at least pay, as we would, the invalid care allowance to new carers over 65 years of age. That would cost about £20 million and would be of direct help to many elderly people, as it would recognise the reality of looking after an elderly husband or wife.
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not giving way on this occasion. Doubtless there will be many opportunities to discuss these matters in the coming weeks.

  575
  Pensioners will receive a 75p increase in their pensions, out of which they will pay the increased fuel duty, increased transport costs and their increased council tax. Doubtless many of them will pay these increased costs out of their £100 heating allowance. Is that what the Government really wanted?
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I am aware that many Members on both sides of the House want to speak in this short debate. My first observation, in response to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, is that I accept that many Labour Members signed an early-day motion on the 75p a week increase. We had a perfect right to indicate to the Government that, although we appreciate what they have been doing for pensioners, we want them to go a step further. There is nothing wrong with that, and signing the motion should not be seen as a criticism of the Government. I for one will not be in the Lobby with the Liberal Democrats this evening. I wish to clear up that point straight away.
  The hon. Member for Northavon referred to statistics going back to the period after the second world war. Anyone who worked in industry after that war will be aware of the various changes that have taken place in terms of pensions and so forth. In the early 1970s, not many people had occupational pensions. They have come on to the scene fairly recently, over the past 10 or 15 years. However, I can tell the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), that I remember when the previous Government— the Thatcher Government—were encouraging people, through tax incentives, to get out of state earnings-related pension schemes and into private pension schemes. We all know the story. There were certain instances of people not benefiting from those schemes because of some of the abuses that took place under the Conservative Government. Those abuses were never addressed by that Government. We have had many debates in the House about that.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Northavon wants to use the surpluses from the social security budget. Many of us would like to take a good look at that proposal. We must be careful when we start to spend surpluses. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about local government expenditure, he will be aware of the need to keep money for a rainy day. It is necessary to be careful also about money that is put away and to ensure that inflation does not lead to greater problems further down the road. Consideration should also be given to the economic situation and the country's circumstances at a given time.
  In general terms, the pensions issue has been a minefield over the past 20 or 25 years.
  Dr. Peter Brand: I am listening with great interest. Does not the hon. Gentleman share the Prime Minister's confidence that we shall continue to become a wealthier nation? Is he betraying the tendency
  576
  that I so often see in older people—that of not recognising when a rainy day has arrived? The plight of pensioners is now such that they are in the rain and should be helped.
  Mr. Cunningham: I learn lessons from the pensioners: always prepare for a rainy day. That is good housekeeping. I have complete confidence in the Prime Minister's analysis of the economy. If the hon. Gentleman wants to increase taxes, he must first ensure that the economy is prosperous and, secondly, that he does not set loose another bout of very high inflation that erodes benefits to pensioners. He should take such factors into consideration when making interventions.
  The official Opposition accused the Government of using stealth to off-load costs onto local authorities, but nobody was more adroit at that than the previous Government, who implemented cuts in housing benefit and in local authorities' administrative costs in respect of housing and other benefits, thus making central Government savings. That was one of the reasons they claimed they were able to reduce taxation. The Opposition spokesperson must be reminded of the millions of pensioners under her Government who had to rely on local authorities, which were left to try to fund free travel or to compensate pensioners for travel. This Government have made an attempt to address those matters.
  I deal now with some of the matters that concern pensioners in Coventry. One is the relationship between pensions and earnings. It would be wrong of me not to mention it; I have regularly received representations on it. I recognise that the Government, through their package of measures, to which I shall come, are doing a number of things for pensioners. Over this Parliament, they will start to address such concerns.
  Pensioners are also concerned about the future of the welfare state. Only last week, the Social Security Secretary indicated that there would be a two-tier pension, which was part of our manifesto. There was also a commitment to the continuation of SERPS—in contrast to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northavon, who seemed to imply that there was some hidden agenda to abolish SERPS. I have seen no such agenda. The Secretary of State implied that we would not only honour our election pledge, but retain SERPS. The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure was present for that exchange, should know that.
  More must be done on the funding of care in the community. The Government have begun the work; they have described certain measures that they are prepared to take. There is also the matter of the cost of sheltered accommodation, which affects many pensioners. I know that the Government will also consider that.
  We should not forget that, although we have had difficulties in the national health service, the Government have begun to pump in the £21 billion for the next three years, which is vital.
  Let us consider what the Government are doing for pensioners. The Opposition spokesperson derided free eye tests because someone had written her a letter saying that it apparently costs £10 every so often. I remember that when free eye tests were abolished, many in the Tory party were up in arms about it. Regardless of whether the figure in the letter is right, such a move created much consternation.

  577
  The other part of the package that shows that we are trying to do something for pensioners—it has been raised many times in the House—is the provision of free television licences for the over-75s. That is an important step—perhaps not for some people, but certainly for pensioners. I remember, one Friday morning, the previous Government's bitter opposition to what we used to call winter chill payments. This Government have taken the matter into consideration and provided £100 a year for help with fuel payments, which is certainly welcome among many pensioners whom I know. In addition, they have reduced VAT on fuel.
  I do not want to go on too long, because I am conscious of the fact that a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House want to speak. I realise that this is a limited debate, but I thought that I should raise certain points of importance to some of the constituents whom I represent.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. David Heath: It is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to the debate. Like many hon. Members, I believe that the safety of pensioners' incomes is crucial, and that it is vital that we debate it. I was a co-sponsor of the early-day motion on which the wording of the motion is based.
  I do not entirely accept the assertion of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is no longer in his place, that the content of his postbag suggests that pensioners are no longer interested in the state retirement pension. The experience of many hon. Members will be different from his. Perhaps pensioners as a class are suffering from exhaustion—sick and tired of making the same points throughout 18 years of Conservative Government and almost three years of Labour Government. They are beginning to despair of ever being given a fair deal.
  I could go into great detail about the plight of pensioners, but I do not want to over-egg the pudding. I do not want to suggest that the situation for every pensioner is dire: that transparently is not so. On the way to the House today, I listened to an interesting discussion on my car radio about a television advertisement that seems to be shown every five minutes, depicting an elderly lady doing her exercises while watering her plants. I shall not mention the private company that it promotes, but the interesting discussion on the radio was about whether the image of elderly people that the advertisement portrays was appropriate. There are arguments on both sides, but it is clear that none of us should give the impression that all pensioners are in desperate financial straits, because they are not.
  That does not alter the fact that some pensioners are in dire straits. Some of them live in great poverty, and their situation worsens year by year. There is a second group of pensioners who cannot be classed as poor under the general definition of that term, but whose incomes are being eroded, and the increases that they are being offered in the retirement pension package are insufficient to meet their increasing needs as individuals trying to lead their lives.
  To be fair to him, the Minister accepted that there is a clear differentiation in the average figures. Pensioner wealth may be increasing because more people who are slightly better off are entering the system and more people who are in considerable poverty are leaving it for one
  578
  reason or another. However, the relative wealth of the individual pensioner entering the system may decrease year by year, which is why we have strongly advocated the need for different treatment of the more elderly pensioner who has different needs.
  I was concerned by the Minister's response. He knows that I have enormous respect for him—I have told him that on other occasions and on different subjects. However, elements of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were disingenuous. He set up a series of straw men that it was convenient to knock down. He contended that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was suggesting that the majority of pensioners were wholly and solely reliant on the standard state pension. My hon. Friend never said that; it is not in the motion; and no one is suggesting that it is the case. While increases in the state pension form a significant part of the calculations that any pensioner will make in regard to the affordability of what he or she will need in the following year, no one is suggesting that a huge number of pensioners live solely on the state pension—although some do.
  The Minister suggested that we were dealing with the absolute level of pension payments, rather than the increase in the absolute level. That, too, is an important distinction. If the year-on-year increases do not match a realistic rate of inflation for pensioners, pensioners, relatively, are becoming poorer, and no amount of fiddling with the figures will alter that basic fact. The question that we must consider is whether it is right for pensioners to be getting poorer while the country is getting richer. Our position is plain: we believe that that should not be the case, and that pensioners can and should expect a better deal from the country.
  Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he aware that, between 1979 and 1996, the proportion of pensioners in the bottom fifth of national income distribution fell from just under half the total to just under a quarter? To aid us in considering what he has to say, can he tell us what proportion of pensioners fall into the bottom fifth of national income distribution in the constituency of Somerton and Frome?
  Mr. Heath: It will not surprise the House to learn that I do not have the answer to that specific question before me, and possibly the Minister does not either. I can say, however, that to talk of proportions as the hon. Gentleman does disguises the truth of the situation. If the number of pensioners falls as a proportion of the total number of people receiving benefits, such as the unemployed, of course the proportion will fall. Most of us recall the massive increase in the number of unemployed people under the Conservative Government. I suggest that what the hon. Gentleman has said actually means very little, and that it certainly does little to benefit debate if, having researched a specific bit of information, an hon. Member then presents it as a genuine interrogation of another hon. Member who has the Floor and is trying to pursue an argument.
  The Minister made too much of reliance on other pension payments. He was at pains to tell us about all the other potential sources of income for pensioners, and how buoyant they were. That, too, avoids the basic issue in the motion, which is the increase in the basic state pension. The right hon. Gentleman failed to be quite so forthcoming in answering an important question put by

  579
  my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon about the measure by which pensions are indexed. It is transparently clear to anyone who has examined the position that the present basket of costs making up the measure of indexation is wholly inappropriate to pensioners. Nothing could illustrate that more clearly than mortgage interest payments, which have a hugely distorting effect.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Why do we not look at the package of payments to which pensioners are subject, especially the payments demanded by public authorities for services that pensioners need in their daily lives? Why is that not taken into account in establishing the basis for indexation? Such a system would at least approach a fair assessment of what the increase in costs is likely to be over the following year, rather than producing an arbitrary figure bearing little relation to the real lives of real pensioners.
  The Government's official response in their amendment to what is a simple and easy-to-understand proposition from the Liberal Democrats is almost an essay on all the novel means of funding that they have devised to avoid doing something about the old age pension. Most of those are in the form either of one-off payments or of hypothecated measures. The Government talk about hypothecated taxation, but I did not realise that that meant that, through the benefits system, they would hypothecate what the recipient did with the taxation. That seems to be what the Government are trying to do in the case of pensioners: to determine what pensioners should do and give them money that is directly related to an activity irrespective of whether they wish to partake of it.
  The amendment draws attention to some measures that I welcome. A long time ago, I was an optician, so I welcome the reintroduction of free eye tests, although I question whether the Government have extended them to the people who are most vulnerable in ophthalmic terms—40 to 50-year-olds, who are most likely to suffer glaucoma or retinopathies—but that is a separate issue. It is a good measure, which I personally applaud.
  The television licence measure has introduced new anomalies to the system. That is one criticism of it, although, in intention, it is not a bad measure. However, we keep on coming back to the point: why do we have all these tactics to divert us away from the basic critical element—the retirement pension and how we even start catching up after the disastrous effects of the Conservative Government's decisions? How do we start to make progress in catching up so that pensioners get back to something like the position that should exist?
  I understand the Minister's position when he says that to try to catch up in one go is beyond the Government's capability. Of course, we all understand that. We know that we cannot simply replace—
  Mr. Rooker rose—
  Mr. Heath: It looks as if the Minister would like to intervene. I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Rooker: What the hon. Gentleman has just said gives me an opportunity to correct something that I said earlier. I said that catching up in one go would cost £13 billion. That figure is correct, but I also said that
  580
  catching up meant £20 a week on the single pension. I managed to subtract £67.50 from £97.45 and make it £20, instead of £30, for which I apologise. I hope that Hansard will take due note of that. However, the cost of catching up in one go would still be £13 billion net.
  Mr. Heath: The Minister has now removed one of the lines from my speech, but it was clearly a slip of the tongue. It does not alter what he said about the £13 billion. Of course, we accept that such a huge sum will not be spent at once, but what worries many Liberal Democrats and a significant number of Labour Members is that we have not even begun catching up.
  I believe that that was what pensioners expected from the Government. They did not expect a change of Government but not a change of policy. That is the problem that most of us have with the Government's performance. We are still waiting for a fair deal for pensioners. Pensioners constantly express to us their grievous disappointment with what has happened to date. They are not ungrateful for what has been done, but they believe that it is not enough, is not coming soon enough and is not dealing with the basic issue of the state retirement pension, the erosion of which continues.
  That is why the motion is important. It is a great shame that we cannot develop the cross-party support that I know exists.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question which generates significant debate in pensioner meetings when I ask it? What answer does he get when he asks his pension groups, "Do you think rich pensioners should get as much help as poor pensioners, or do you think that the Government are right to try to target help at poor pensioners first?"
  Mr. Heath: My answer would be that I have a curious devotion to the principle of progressive taxation. That is a useful way in which to deal with that issue, although perhaps that view is not now widely shared in the House.
  Today, we had the opportunity of assembling that cross-party coalition of interests that really might have made a significant point to Ministers on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, if that coalition had been assembled, it would have hugely reduced the Government's majority. He used the word "decimated" to describe the reduction, but was immediately challenged by Conservative Members on the word's meaning. However, I thought that he used it correctly, as the 10 per cent. of hon. Members who stayed loyal to the Government—rather than the 90-percent majority who were prepared to express their view—would have paid the price. That cohort should have been grateful for the opportunity to express their opinion on a very important matter.
  After hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), I think that the most confusing aspect of today's debate lies in determining what on earth Conservative Members' position on the issue might be. Although the hon. Lady did not allow interventions late in her speech—so that hon. Members were not able to clarify the position—we were expecting to be told Conservative Members' opinion on a crucial issue and their answer to a very simple question: is the 75p increase adequate or inadequate? We still do not know their answer to the question, as the hon. Lady seemed happy to speak about anything other than the motion on the Order Paper.

  581
  Such reticence was unexpected, given the brief letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who, in the last paragraph, states:
  "As to our voting intentions on the up-rating statement, we will make our position clear nearer the time."
  If we are to learn the official Opposition's position on the matter, we really are going to have to run to the wire on it.
  Conservative Members simply cannot decide whether 75p is adequate or inadequate. Is it a difficult answer to give? I think that it is not. The Government say that the increase is adequate; Liberal Democrat Members say that it is inadequate; Conservative Members do not know. The official Opposition's position is that they do not know whether it is adequate. If they choose to abstain in the vote at the end of the debate, the British people will have the clearest demonstration possible of why the official Opposition simply cannot provide a credible opposition on behalf of the many pensioners who were expecting their support today. I say that pensioners were expecting Conservative Members' support today, although after 18 years of Conservative Government perhaps they were not.
  It is important that we have had this debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to it. I also hope that we have been able to make a point on behalf of British pensioners—which is simply that we do not believe that it is right that, year after year, their pension entitlement should suffer from erosion, they should get poorer, and that, in town and country alike, they should find themselves in miserable conditions. Let us not forget that rural pensioner poverty is a very real issue and that many pensioners in rural areas do not have access to the services that those in urban areas expect.
  If we cannot have a debate on the subject that is sensible, addresses the issues and produces results, Parliament is failing those who deserve our support.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I suppose that recently many of us have been reflecting on the previous century. One of the great unsung achievements of that century is the fact that the number of people of retiring age has increased dramatically. In the century's first census, in 1901, about half a million people were over 75; at the century's last census, the figure was more than 4 million. The increase is hardly surprising. In 1908, when the old age pension was first introduced, for people over 70, average male life expectancy was a mere 48 years.
  The previous century witnessed a dramatic improvement in longevity. That is something to be celebrated. We often forget that major achievement of the past century, which has left us with about 11 million pensioners in this country—about one in four of the electorate. The majority lead active lives, participating fully in the community and living independently with their friends and neighbours.
  It is shocking when people talk about the demographic time bomb, as if there were a problem with more people living longer than we can afford. Not only is that an inaccurate description of current plans for funding retirement, but it is deeply offensive to 11 million people and their friends and relatives.
  582
  The situation that the Government inherited, as set out in the Government amendment, is characterised by two obvious facts. First, the number of pensioners living in poverty was increasing—the figure stood at one pensioner in four at the time of the election. Secondly, pensioners had a growing dependence on means-tested benefits. The new Labour Government had to address those two key problems.
  I congratulate the Government on their significant achievements in addressing the needs of today's pensioners. The minimum income guarantee has resulted in record increases in income support of three times normal levels. There is a commitment that those levels will rise in line with earnings. The Government are also committed to a take-up campaign. It is slightly overdue, but no doubt that is because they are determined to get it right. I have close relatives who are almost certainly entitled to income support and I am concerned that accurate information should be made available. It is better to spend a little time on the take-up campaign and ensure that it works, but it has to be a priority. I hope that the Government will consider retrospective payments to those who have missed out so far because they have known nothing about the minimum income guarantee.
  I welcome the free eye tests for pensioners, the increase in the winter fuel payments and the free television licences for those over 75. In case anyone has any doubts, the Liberal Democrats welcome them too. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I share a parliamentary boundary. We also happen to have all or part of our constituencies within the area covered by South Gloucestershire county council. Last year, the Liberal Democrats on that council voted for a resolution that included the following:
  "the council therefore welcomes the current Labour Government's commitment to pensioners as demonstrated by its fivefold increase in winter fuel payments, free eye tests for pensioners and cutting VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent., the lowest level allowed and notes the current Labour Government's effort to start to address this problem"—
  the problem of poverty, that is—
  "by introducing a minimum income guarantee for pensioners which will be uprated in line with earnings rather than prices from April 2000."
  Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors from my local authority pointed out:
  "On present estimates, it will mean that the poorest pensioners will be getting nearly £800 a year more as a couple and nearly £500 a year more as a single pensioner, than they did in 1997".
  I am pleased that there is common ground in congratulating the Government on their significant measures to address the needs of pensioners.
  However, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), I admit that I signed early-day motion No. 73, the words of which are exactly the same as the motion today. The motion may have been tabled for reasons about which one could speculate, but as a matter of fact, I believe that April's 75p increase is inadequate. I believe that there should be a real-terms increase in the basic retirement pension. If I did not believe that, I would not have signed the motion. Having done so—and not taken my name off the motion—I still believe that. My position would otherwise be rather difficult.
  I believe that 75p is not enough—first, because that is overwhelmingly the view of the public. My constituents who have contacted me and stopped me at the post

  583
  office—pensioners have discovered that this is an effective way of getting their point across to their Member of Parliament—have made it clear that a real increase in the pension, and not just one to match inflation, would be warmly welcomed. I have no doubt also that every organisation representing pensioners would welcome a real increase in the basic retirement pension. I am convinced that every trade union would take the same view, not least because their members are future pensioners.
  I would go so far as to say that if the Government had decided to increase the basic state pension by slightly more than inflation, I suspect that there would not have been much opposition from Labour Back Benchers. People would not have said, "In principle, this is the wrong thing to do." I suspect that there might have been a fair amount of support.
  Secondly, at present, a real increase in the basic state pension is the only way to help the poorest 750,000 to 1 million pensioners who are entitled to income support but do not claim it. It is the only way to improve their incomes and to relieve their poverty.
  Thirdly, increasing the basic state pension would reduce the number of people dependent on means testing, which is a clear objective of Government policy. Fourthly, it would increase saving. Everyone has acknowledged that means testing penalises saving. That is why the Government, rightly, are reviewing the capital limits. We all know of many people who, because of their modest savings, are just above the income support level and cannot access significant improvements in their income unless the basic state pension improves.
  The final reason why I signed the motion—and why I have left my name on it—is that its proposals are entirely consistent with Labour's election commitment. At the election, we said that the
  "basic state pension will be retained as the foundation of pension provision".
  It is difficult to envisage how the basic state pension can be that foundation unless in some way it keeps up with rising living standards. We said also that the basic state pension would increase
  "at least in line with prices".
  We did not say that it would increase only in line with prices. Along with my colleagues, I signed an early-day motion that was entirely consistent with the policy on which we fought the election.
  I shall support the Government amendment tonight. However, I cannot, in all conscience, vote against the Liberal Democrats' motion—for the very simple reason that I support it.
  5.20pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who does his career no good by speaking from his heart; I am glad that he, for one, will stick to his guns on the motion that he signed.
  The Government have two defences against the motion moved so ably by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). I do not always agree with what he says, but he always adduces strong arguments in support of
  584
  his case. The Government say that they simply cannot afford to restore the link with earnings and that it is better to concentrate resources on those who need them most. Those are understandable arguments.
  There is the TINA argument—the old Thatcherite argument that there is no alternative—that we cannot restore the link because it would cost us up to £8 billion over 10 years. No one argues that we would go bankrupt, because we are such a wealthy country, but it is argued that the public finances would be seriously affected.
  There is a universality argument: that such would be the reaction of taxpayers to an increase in public expenditure that there would be pressure for the basic state pension to be means-tested; there is also a demographic argument, that we are an increasingly greying population; and there is the argument, to which I am sympathetic, that people's willingness to invest in private pensions would be affected. There is also a ratchet effect argument, but that is so complex, and we have so little time, that I had better leave it for another day.
  Everyone seems to accept those arguments, but I am not sure that they are as strong as people make out. The Government actuary, in his quinquennia] review, said:
  "Real earnings growth will result in working people being relatively better off in future even if National Insurance contribution rates were to be increased to meet the cost of increasing flat-rate benefits in line with earnings. Based on gross pay and real earnings growth of 1.5% per annum, real earnings relative to prices will, in the year 2060, be approximately 2.5 times the corresponding level in 1999/00. Allowing for higher National Insurance contribution rates and earnings limits, someone on average male earnings would still have real net earnings, after National Insurance contributions, of approximately 2.4 times current levels."
  That means that, because our economy is growing so well, we could afford to restore the link and people in work would still be better off.
  Before the Social Security Committee, the Government actuary said:
  "The point is that those who are working and contributing would still be a lot better off than they are today even if we were deducting contributions to enable the earnings link to be maintained."
  I am not arguing that we should restore the link but emphasising the fact that such is the wealth being generated in our economy that we could do more to help the basic state pension. It may have been right to break the link all those years ago, but we could consider being more generous now. There are also other ways in which we could help with pensions in the private sector to avoid means testing.
  The Government argue that they are concentrating resources on the pensioners who are most in need and that there is no point in spreading the butter very thinly all over the place. The Department of Social Security has published an interesting research summary in its report No. 100. It has conducted research into the attitudes of those who should be claiming income support but are not. It says that 48 per cent. of pensioners still appear to be "entitled non-recipients" of income support.
  The report says that people who are entitled to the means-tested benefits of the minimum income guarantee are not claiming them because there is "an attitudinal component"—I apologise for the social-security speak that runs through the document, but it is the Government's document and that is why I am quoting it—
  "which here is broadly described as the 'stigma' dimension. The pensioners wished to remain independent and self sufficient in older age, they expressed a concern that claiming IS could be a threat to their pride and independence."

  585
  The second reason is
  "a process dimension, consisting of objections to, or negative perceptions of, various aspects of the claim process. For some these negative images were based on past memories and images of the history of the social security system. Images of those claiming benefits tended to be negative, viewing claimants as 'spongers' or 'scroungers'."
  Although the Government would argue that we have left behind the workhouse mentality of the 19th century and pensioners who have not made adequate contributions for their futures are not forced into workhouses, pensioners feel forced into some sort of mental workhouse when they are told that they must apply for certain benefits. Many pensioners do not want to do so.
  Mr. Coaker: If there is such a problem with means-tested benefits, why is it that in my surgeries claims by pensioners for means-tested benefits such as housing benefit or council tax benefit are not affected? There is an attitudinal problem, but debates in which we continue to talk about stigma and income support will not help.
  Mr. Leigh: I cannot accept that. I am not making the facts up: they come from the Government's document. Those applying for means-tested benefits are often younger people, many of whom are out to get every benefit they can. There is nothing wrong in that, if they are entitled to the benefits. However, those younger people are very different from the older people who were brought up in a fine tradition and who are proud to be pensioners. They feel that they have paid their debt to society, worked all their lives and looked forward to retiring. They feel that it is a judgment against themselves to have to apply for means-tested benefits and they do not want to do so. I am not making the situation worse by talking about it, because we have to be honest and address it. There is something wrong with our social security system.
  On the other hand, our pensioners are generally doing very well. The statistics come pouring in, but they show that the richest pensioners have become some 80 per cent. better off over the past two decades. Even the poorest pensioners, thanks to means-tested benefits, are a third better off. In material terms, pensioners may be better off, but whether they are happy about how that has been achieved is another question.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his introductory remarks. Does he accept that the statistics are misleading, because they do not follow an individual pensioner over time? Over time, individual pensioners see their incomes maintained or falling, as inflation erodes the real value of their income, but the averages include the fact that the poorest old pensioners have died and the newly retired ones have whopping great occupational pensions. The averages shoot up, but any given pensioner is seeing not 30 per cent. rises but steady real-terms falls.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We should be very cautious about accepting the many statistics that are given to us. The statistic that I have just cited has appeared in many briefing notes over the years and is a good little quotation to bring up in defence of the Government of the day, but it may not accurately reflect the experience of an individual pensioner.
  Mr. Bercow: Do not poor take-up rates underline the need for Governments to do everything in their power
  586
  to minimise unavoidable pensioner costs? Would not one effective way in which to do that be for the Government to work to the maximum to change fundamentally that charter for amoral pilfering otherwise known as the common agricultural policy?
  Mr. Leigh: I shall not go down that route, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I know that you would take me to task. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that our country has a tradition of fair and uncorrupt Government.
  The Liberal Democrats may be right to say that it is an insult to pay pensioners an April increase of only 75p for the year, when the economy is supposed to be doing well. Perhaps we could afford £1, although I do not want to go too far. As the Minister said, pensions have not always increased in line with inflation: sometimes they have risen by more, sometimes they have not moved at all. No hard and fast rule states that the 75p increment cannot be changed.
  The case can be argued in terms of what can be done immediately to help pensioners, and what can be done in the long term. Our room for manoeuvre for helping existing pensioners may be limited, but the long-term prospects are much more exciting and interesting because the future allows more room for manoeuvre.
  The previous Government succeeded in changing people's attitudes. Philip Booth, in Economic Affairs, said:
  "The OECD looked at long-term budget deficits and national debt figures for various countries, on the assumption that their state social-insurance schemes remain intact. The estimates were based on the assumption of 1995 policies continuing. By 2030, Germany was projected to have a budget deficit of 9 per cent. of GDP and a debt:GDP ratio of over 100 per cent. Figures for France were similar. Italy was projected to have a budget deficit of 30 per cent. and a debt:GDP ratio of 120 per cent. The UK had a projected budget surplus and a projected debt:GDP ratio of below 10 per cent."
  One of the Conservative Government's greatest achievements was to increase dramatically the resources put into private pensions and occupational pensions. I want that sort of response to continue.
  I am talking about the long term, and what I propose will not have any direct benefit for today's pensioners. However, I hope that the next Conservative Government will build on the work of this Labour Government, who are trying to create a basic pension system that raises people above means-tested benefits. The Government argue that that is what the stakeholder pension and the second pension will do, but there are more creative ways to give people a choice about where their money should be invested.
  People's money should be invested in their own personal funds. People should be allowed to retain those funds in the public sector. They should have the right to insist on that. Alternatively, they could go into a mutual friendly society, or into a private insurance scheme. The result would be a personally funded system, which the Government could not attack as they have attacked the SERPS principle. However, I accept that that is a long-term solution and that it does not help the immediate problem.
  Earlier, I talked about the workhouse. I have often noted that Labour Members of Parliament explain their calling by referring to a novel—"The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists", by Robert Tressell—that moved them in

  587
  their youth. I read the book last year, as in the House it is important to know one's enemy. It is a very good book, and I commend it, although there are some boring passages about socialist ideology. If Robert Tressell were alive today, I am sure that Alastair Campbell would give him a quick telephone call to say that he had never written the novel.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is in his place. He has read the novel, and approves of it. One character is called Jack Linden, formerly a fine worker but now old and unable to work. He is thrown out of employment and has no money, so he has to ask the local community for help. The book says that on a Wednesday the secretary of the Organized Benevolence Society called at the House, and on the Friday
  "Jack received a letter from him to the effect that the case had been duly considered by the committee, who had come to the conclusion that as it was a 'chronic' case they were unable to deal with it, and advised him to apply to the Board of Guardians. This was what Linden had hitherto shrunk from doing"—
  he was a pensioner of 67—
  "but the situation was desperate. They owed five weeks' rent, and to crown their misfortune his eyesight had become so bad that even if there had been any prospect of obtaining work it was very doubtful if he could have managed to do it. So Linden, feeling utterly crushed and degraded, swallowed all that remained of his pride and went like a beaten dog to see the relieving officer, who took him before the Board, who did not think it a suitable case for out-relief, and after some preliminaries it was arranged that Linden and his wife were to go into the workhouse, and Mary"—
  their daughter—
  "was to be allowed three shillings a week to help her to support herself and the two children. As for Linden's sons, the Guardians intimated their intention of compelling them to contribute towards the cost of their parents* maintenance."
  Those appalling conditions existed in this country at the beginning of the last century. I am not, of course, arguing that the Government are forcing anybody into a workhouse. We live in a prosperous society, in which people are helped through means-tested benefits. But many pensioners feel that they are being forced into a workhouse—they have paid their way all their life, yet when they retire at the age of 65, they find that they have to go cap in hand, just like Jack Linden, to ask for a means-tested benefit. That is simply not fair or right.
  5.36 pm
  Ms Oona King: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because I represent a constituency where the gap between the needs of pensioners, and the support that they receive, is one of the widest. If any Opposition Member doubts the effects of 18 years of Tory slash and burn on our public services, I invite them to come with me to visit Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, Wapping, Bow or Stepney. Pensioners in those areas—which were, incidentally, bombed in the second world war—spend much of their time in my constituency surgeries telling me of the gap between their needs and the support that they receive.
  Deprivation in Tower Hamlets is not confined to young families living in damp, overcrowded flats, with no one in work and little prospect of employment. In fact, I would say that social exclusion is felt most acutely by my elderly and vulnerable constituents who spent their whole lives
  588
  working, looking forward to retiring with comfort and dignity. Of course, they do not have the opportunity, as younger constituents do, to benefit from the Government's new deal for the unemployed, although they benefit from many of the new measures that the Government have introduced, to which I shall come.
  It remains the case, however, that many pensioners have no chance of enjoying a retirement in the comfort and dignity that they hoped for. We must be honest and recognise that, for many, retirement continues to be a daily struggle to make ends meet. There is certainly little left over at the end of each week to enjoy the things that many of us in the working population take for granted. I will never forget an elderly constituent who came to one of my first constituency surgeries and said, "I must speak with you, because my rent has gone up from £29.50 a week to £29.70." My maths is not great at the best of the times; however, it was obvious that this man had queued for four hours to tell me that his rent had gone up by 20p a week. Most of us in the Chamber might drop a 20p piece on the floor and continue walking—we certainly would not queue for four hours to speak to our Member of Parliament about losing that amount. So I hope that this debate will take into account the reality of many pensioners' lives.
  We must also recognise that many pensioners sit at home in fear. They are afraid not just to go out because of crime, but to stay in their own homes because of crime, so often linked to drugs. They are afraid of becoming ill or disabled and of needing long-term care that they cannot afford.
  The Government have taken essential and well-publicised steps to address the needs of pensioners through many measures. Those include the £100 increase in winter fuel allowance, the restoration of free eye tests, the introduction of free television licences for the over-75s, increased funding for the health service and for local authorities' social services departments and, most importantly, the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners.
  I was going to discuss my concerns about the increased investment that we want over the next two years in the health service but, in the light of the Prime Minister's welcome commitment to increase health spending year on year until the proportion of our gross domestic product spent on health is in line with the proportions in other western countries, I will confine myself to the amount of money that pensioners have to live on.
  I wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, which fulfils our manifesto commitment to help the poorest pensioners. I particularly welcome the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that the guarantee will rise in line with earnings, rather than inflation. Many hon. Members meet pensioners who do not realise that they are entitled to an income support top-up to bring them up to the amount of the minimum income guarantee. I pay tribute to Tower Hamlets Age Concern and other organisations that raise awareness of the guarantee and help to guide my constituents through the benefits maze to ensure that they receive their entitlements. I hope that all hon. Members will remind pensioners who come to see them that the minimum income guarantee can be claimed in writing or by

  589
  telephone. Complicated application forms often put pensioners off making claims, and I am certain that the Government's improvements will help.
  Other pensioners, particularly the oldest, who remember the means tests of the 1930s, are often put off claiming minimum income guarantee because a stigma is attached to income support. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister assure the House last week that the forthcoming Government-sponsored take-up campaign would include a partial rebranding of the guarantee to try to remove some of that stigma.
  The challenge before us is to introduce measures that ensure that all pensioners share in the growing prosperity of the nation. However, despite the Government's best efforts, it is true, both in perception and in reality, that many pensioners are not sharing that prosperity. That is why I should like an increase greater than inflation in the basic state pension. Because of the panoply of measures that I have mentioned, it would be untrue to imply that the Government are giving pensioners only 75p extra, but it would be equally untrue to say that the country could not afford to pay pensioners more in basic state pension. The abolition of the link between basic state pension and average earnings and the later entrenchment of that decision were among the meanest and most disgraceful acts of the Thatcher and Major Governments. Restoring and backdating the link would carry an astronomical financial cost, which I shall turn to shortly.
  Putting extra money into the basic state pension would not target those pensioners most in need, and, as with any universal benefit, some money would go to relatively rich pensioners. Stakeholder pensions and second state pensions will improve matters for many pensioners in future, particularly those who have been overlooked in the past, such as women and carers. I cannot help but point out that I am one of only two women Members in the Chamber at present. No woman Conservative Members— indeed, hardly any Tories at all—are here, and only one of the three women Liberal Democrats is present. It is quite obvious why women have been overlooked by the Department of Social Security and by almost every other Department: we are not present to make our voices heard. That is clearly shown in this Chamber today; I am sick to death of it.
  Most pensioners in my constituency—both men and women—have never had an opportunity to contribute to occupational or private pension schemes. They paid then-stamp throughout their whole working life in the expectation that they would receive a decent pension from the state. They deserve more than they are getting at present. They certainly deserve the £30 a week extra for single pensioners and the £30 to £45 a week extra for couples that they would receive if the earnings link were restored. However, that is pie in the sky in our current political situation. How much would it cost? My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned a cost of £13 billion net. In response to questions, I have been reliably informed that it would mean 6p on basic income tax. Which politician, from any party, will stand up and say, "Six pence on income tax, vote for me"? No politician will say that. And which pensioner will expect their children to vote for it? We are all dishonest if we do not remain in the real world.
  Despite that, I sincerely hope that Ministers might signal their good intentions by reviewing next year's inflation-linked increase, so that we accelerate the
  590
  allocation of the share of the country's income that is directed at pensioners. It was right and proper that the Government's overall strategy was first to direct our efforts towards the poorest pensioners. I hope that we shall now turn our attention to those pensioners who do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee. Those people are not necessarily rich; indeed, many of them only just manage to keep their heads above water. It is unfair that those who have worked hard all their lives and have savings, or a small occupational pension, which take them just above income support, should end up being worse off because they do not receive other passported benefits, such as housing benefit or council tax benefit.
  Although people with savings should be expected to make use of them in retirement, and should not live off only the interest, some pensioners who visit me do not accept that. We must realise that there is still a disincentive to save; we should do more to ensure that people with savings and occupational pensions do not lose out.
  I am delighted that the Government have extended the new l0p income tax starting rate to savings. That will help pensioners with savings—as will next year's 22p standard rate. I was also delighted to note the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his pre-Budget statement, that the personal allowance for the elderly would be raised by £310 for those aged between 65 and 74 and by £380 for those aged 75 years and over. That increase has a phenomenal meaning. No pensioner aged between 65 and 74, who has an income of £110 or less a week, will pay income tax. When I say "phenomenal", I mean that, as a result of the measures, few pensioners in Tower Hamlets, for example, will pay income tax on any of their income. Many pensioners will surely be grateful to the Government for that.
  I remind anyone who genuinely cares about getting a better deal for pensioners that only this Labour Government are delivering that. Only this Labour Government will deliver an even better deal in the future. As we know, if they had to, the Tories would sell the clothes off their grandmother. As for the Liberals, they are always talking about putting lp on income tax. [Interruption.] Liberal Members have no doubt changed their policy on that as well, judging by their remarks. That lp on income tax would raise approximately £2 billion. Let us suppose that the Liberals were going to direct half of that—£1 billion—to pensioners. By the end of this Parliament, Labour will have spent £4 billion extra on pensioners. If people examine the facts, they will recognise that only Labour has both the moral commitment and the financial ability to meet pensioners' needs.
  I hope that the Government will do more. I hope that they will direct more money towards pensioners. But let us remember that the Labour Government are doing more to meet the needs of pensioners than the Tories or Liberals could ever hope to offer.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I speak for the town— Southport—that has the second-highest proportion of pensioners in Great Britain. We are beaten only by Bournemouth.
  A fortnight ago, I spoke to a meeting of 200 pensioners. Beforehand, I had sent out a little memo which said, "If you have a particular gripe, bring it to the meeting."

  591
  Of course, the insult of the 75p pension increase was high on the agenda; everyone spoke about that. However, when they spoke, pensioners were also looking at the other part of the chitty that I had sent, which asked how much the price of their average basket of groceries, bought from a supermarket or small store, had increased in the past three years. The answer that came back—people had not got together to discuss the subject—was, between £2 and £2.50. They compared that with the mere 75p increase that the Government have graciously allowed them, which pensioners say is not enough.
  I do not meet pensioners at the post office, but I knock on doors, as we all do. Recently, I have had to knock on 500 doors because there is to be a by-election in Ainsdale ward. I have also knocked on doors in my ward, because I am still a member of the local authority, Sefton. When asked, "Have you anything to say to a politician?" most people go quiet and do not say much. This time, though, people were very vociferous on two issues. The minor issue was the lack of sports facilities for young people in Southport, but people were also asking, "Why is this insult of 75p being thrust upon us, as pensioners?" That was the major issue.
  I mentioned to people that we had opposed the provision. I said that we would also express our opposition to it today, in the motion, and people were grateful for that; but, in the end, it is the Government who decide. We have said that we shall make our case forcefully, but the Government must decide whether the 75p increase is enough.
  I happened to be in the House in 1988, when I was speaking on health for my party, and a disastrous vote took place. The Conservatives wanted to introduce charges for eye testing and dental charges, and we, with the Labour Opposition, voted against the provision. It was passed by only six votes, much to the regret of myself, the country and pensioners. Some pensioners over the age of 80 and various others on benefit did not need to pay that charge, but the majority of pensioners did have to pay, so they were delighted when we voted, with the new Labour Government, to remove the charge. That pleasure has been completely destroyed by the increase of only 75p.
  At the recent meeting, the pensioners acknowledged that eye tests were now free but asked me, "Have you seen the cost of spectacles?" They were paying an average of between £50 and £90 for spectacles or lenses. That cost has been increasing. Although their eye test is free, that saving has not counterbalanced the increased charges.
  In my constituency, Mersea Travel led the way—with Sheffield—in granting a free pensioners travel pass. That pass is still available and there are no complaints but, when I speak to groups elsewhere, a very strong case is made that travel is not free. The concessionary pass does not exist; tokens are available, which pay for only part of the journey. We may be lucky in my part of Southport, but throughout rural areas, for instance, the pensioners pass has not yet reached the standard set by the two authorities that first offered the free pass.
  Travel benefits pensioners. Pensioners who can get out and travel around keep fitter, saving the NHS money. Therefore, the pensioners pass is essential. I hope that the Government will take a broad perspective, and remember those people who are not capable of moving beyond their home.
  592
  Another group of poor pensioners is emerging very strongly in my constituency and in many other seaside resorts. That group consists of pensioners who were left as widows by husbands who thought that they had left them well-off in dividends, shares, and money in building societies. All those pensioners have seen their income shrivel over the past few years—not two years, but the past few years—so much so that, now, the majority of visitors to my surgery, and to the citizens advice bureau in Southport, have debts incurred because of property repairs.
  Last week, a widow—quite well-to-do, I supposed— visited my surgery and said that she was desperate. Her income had shrivelled so much that, although the roof was going, she had no money with which to repair it. These, the new poor, are arriving very sharply in this country. Anyone who speaks to the CAB or visits any Member's surgery will find that that is so.
  If the pensioner has been connected, or the husband was connected, with the forces, they can be advised—as I advise them—to go to the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association, which is very good indeed, or to the Army, Navy and Air Force benevolent funds. However, only part of the cost of repairs can be paid by that organisation or organisations, and it is a means-tested affair. The forces are doing their bit for the pensioners— they are elderly pensioners now—but we should not have to rely on benevolent funds to ensure that pensioners get an adequate living.
  The standard spending assessment is not what local authorities expected, so every authority is struggling to make ends meet. They now find that increases have not kept pace with inflation and that unexpected matters arise which require purchase and expense. Costs of care are increasing. Those costs include the cost of home help. At the moment, that service is drifting into private enterprise. About 30, 40, 50 and, in some cases, 70 per cent. of that care help has been privatised and, because of privatisation, costs are increasing.
  Dr. Brand: Has my hon. Friend come across one of the consequences of privatising home care? Many pensioners now have to pay VAT on the services that they receive at home. Is it not disgraceful that the Government penalise pensioners twice?
  Mr. Fearn: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such cases have been brought to my surgery and to the citizens advice bureau, which actually passes its cases on to me when it cannot find an answer.
  Mr. Berry: I thought that it was the other way round.
  Mr. Fearn: We do both. However, I write to Ministers and Government officials and receive answers that are not always terribly helpful. They sometimes are, but from the point of view of giving, their response is normally parsimonious.
  Some people say that they are tired of pensioners saying, "I fought for my country and now look at how I am being treated with an increase of only 75p in my pension." However, I admire the pensioners who say that. They have done their service for the country not only when they fought, but as members of this great country's work force. They are being kicked in the teeth as regards pensions.

  593
  When the Minister replies, will he clarify the position of the minimum income guarantee for older women? We certainly know that they make up one category that does not collect what it is due. That is not because such women are too proud to claim, but because the benefit is not that well known. What briefing and encouragement will the Minister give to induce them to apply for the benefit?
  6.2 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: I shall confine my brief remarks to four matters of particular relevance to pensioners. I will follow many hon. Members in discussing concessionary television licences; I will follow the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) in considering concessionary bus passes; and I will follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in considering the take-up of income support by pensioners, and the minimum income guarantee. I will quote the same Government research document as did the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but I cannot promise to quote from "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". It must be the first time in the long history of Parliament that that book has been quoted by a Conservative Member.
  I preface my remarks by pointing out that in my constituency, as in many others, retired and older people play a key role in maintaining many voluntary organisations, church organisations, much of local government and many political parties. I observed the Conservative party conference, and it seems that retired people play a disproportionate role in maintaining the major Opposition party. Nevertheless, their enthusiasm, energy and experience keep many community organisations going.
  My father was 75 on 12 November last year. He is lucky enough to receive a teacher's pension. Three days before he was 75, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, from this year, all 75-year-olds would get a free television licence. At last, my dad has to admit that I must be a man of some influence to arrange that three days before his birthday. Seriously, however, there is no issue that causes greater argument among pensioners and between pensioners and politicians than the operation of the current concessionary television licence scheme, which applies to some forms of sheltered housing.
  The Davies committee that considered the funding of the BBC concluded that the current concession generally goes to poorer pensioners and that those that receive it are more likely to be single pensioners. Therefore, there is a rough and ready distributional justification for the scheme. However, the logic of giving extremely welcome free television licences to those over 75 will, and should, ultimately be extended to all pensioners. It costs £300 million to give free licences to those over 75, and it would cost a further £400 million to give it to all pensioners, as is the case in Ireland. I hope that, in time, we shall do that.
  Even though one-off payments, such as winter fuel payments and free television licences, are often criticised, they benefit all pensioners. They benefit pensioners who claim income support and do not benefit from pension increases, and they benefit pensioners who are entitled to income support and do not claim it. In time, the free licence scheme should be extended to all pensioners.
  If there is one subject that causes more debate among pensioners than the concessionary television licence, it is concessionary bus passes. That is particularly true in
  594
  border areas between two concessionary fare regimes. My constituency is in such a border area. The hon. Member for Southport referred to bus tokens; in Tadcaster, pensioners receive £8 worth of bus tokens a year. A return journey to Leeds costs £3.50, so pensioners can make two journeys into Leeds and have £1 of tokens left. When the half-fare bus pass is introduced for pensioners in Tadcaster next year, a couple going into Leeds once a week could make a big saving of £180 a year.
  However, there are several issues that the Government must consider. In particular, they must consider reciprocal arrangements between different authorities and the mutual recognition of bus passes. In some areas, such recognition takes place and is usually co-ordinated by the county council. For example, in Sussex and Devon, a bus pass from one district will enable a pensioner to receive concessions in any other district in those counties.
  West Yorkshire passenger transport authority gives mutual recognition to the concessions given to pensioners in Manchester. Therefore, if pensioners with a West Yorkshire bus pass travel to Greater Manchester, they can receive the concessions that are available there. If West Yorkshire passenger transport authority gives concessions to Lancastrians—albeit pensioners—the very least that should happen is that, once other councils in Yorkshire start to introduce such schemes, there should be mutual recognition across the county; otherwise, what will happen to pensioners from Tadcaster who go to Leeds and catch a bus to St. James's hospital to visit relatives or one to an out-of-town leisure centre so that they can go for a swim or play bowls? Are we suggesting that they should not receive the 20p concession that is available to pensioners in the West Yorkshire area and that they should have to pay the full fare for the second journey? Details of such schemes need scrutinising.
  On pensioners' take-up of income support, I refer, as I said I would, to the research published by the Government in October and to the press releases that came out in December. This valuable research was based in nine different areas and the December press release says that its aim was
  "to examine the most effective and cost efficient ways of identifying pensioners who were entitled to IS but were not claiming … and, having identified them, to examine the most effective and efficient ways of encouraging them to claim."
  Roughly 9,000 pilot schemes were run in the nine areas, and four ways were used to get in touch with pensioners. They were:
  "telephone; visit; postal (long form), and postal (short screening form)."
  As was said earlier, the most effective way of contacting pensioners to encourage them to take up benefit was to send them the long form and an accompanying letter.
  It is worth while considering the detail of the research to show the type of problems with which the Government have to deal. It points out that 32 per cent. of the pilot cases contacted by the Benefits Agency did not respond to an intervention, as it is described in the document, and that 15 per cent. said that they did not want to make a claim. Therefore, almost 50 per cent. of the pilot cases were lost at that stage. Indeed, only 5 per cent. of the pilot cases ultimately resulted in a successful claim for income support.
  What lessons can we learn from the research? Possibly, we can learn that it is difficult for the Benefits Agency to be the most effective mechanism for take-up campaigns.

  595
  Its job is to process efficiently and calculate benefit claims. Problems of stigma, for example, are particularly difficult for the Benefits Agency to overcome. Other lessons that we can learn are identified in the Government's press release. It states that the
  "main barriers to claiming are attitudes about being an Income Support claimant and its perceived stigma"
  and
  "the physical process of making a claim".
  It continues:
  "More specifically, these involve pensioners misunderstanding the criteria for entitlement; the complexity of the application form … the need to reveal financial details; the terminology used, eg benefit, support."
  I look forward to the Government's forthcoming announcement about how to encourage take-up among pensioners. Will that be by simplifying the form, or reinforcing the notion of entitlement, which is referred to in the Government's press release, and getting endorsement from authority figures? I do not know whether that will be Victor Meldrew. However, such moves will be welcome.
  The real solution is buried away in the press release, where it is referred to as an option. It is the option of
  "making Income Support an automatic payment without a need to claim".
  That was certainly envisaged by the Commission on Social Justice, which was set up by the late John Smith. The commission was probably the first body to popularise the idea of a minimum income guarantee for pensioners. It certainly envisaged ultimately that in making a claim for a state pension, pensioners would be asked at that stage what other income from pensions they received. If that did not add up to the minimum pension guarantee, they would automatically receive that payment. That is the only sure-fire way of ensuring that all pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee are paid it.
  Buried away in the research document is a sentence that I shall bring to the attention of the House. It states:
  "Populous urban areas with the highest levels of deprivation and income support receipt had more extensive provision of advice and advocacy services. More rural areas (with the exception of York) had poor provision of information and advice. Assessing the overall impact of welfare rights activity was difficult. Little robust, systematic evaluation of take-up activity was found in the areas."
  I suggest that pensioners, especially those in rural areas such as North Yorkshire, suffer a double whammy in terms of the benefits that should be available to them. First, advice centres are not nearly comprehensive enough in rural areas, although I accept that some of the advice services are very good, as they are in North Yorkshire. As a result, take-up levels for income support in rural areas, including attendance allowance and disability living allowance, are much lower than in urban areas. It reinforces the so-called stigma that attaches to them if fewer people claim them.
  Secondly, local authorities, which depend for their funding, as North Yorkshire county council does—and particularly its social services departments—on the number of claimants, among pensioners, of income support, attendance allowance and disability living allowance, lose out through lack of grants. In terms of the provision of home helps and meals on wheels services, many people in rural areas suffer.
  596
  The North Yorkshire county council Labour group, although in a minority, has undertaken some research on these matters. It has found that only 11.1 per cent. of pensioners in North Yorkshire claim successfully for attendance allowance and disability living allowance, which are non-means-tested benefits. The England average is 14.5 per cent. The average among county councils is 13.3 per cent. Even though the group is a minority, it has successfully persuaded the county council to give corporate priority this year to the improvement of welfare benefits advice. I leave the House with the thought that central and local government have a key role in ensuring that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: The impact of the current virus is such that my speech will be delivered in perhaps softer tones than would be customary. None the less, I hope that it will contribute something to the debate. It is a pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who made several interesting proposals and suggestions—not least the need for joined-up government across the Pennines on transport policy.
  When I read the motion I was disappointed with its scope. When I first saw the subject for the debate— meeting the needs of pensioners—I thought that we would have a much more wide-ranging debate than one that focused narrowly on the 75p increase in the state retirement pension. However, the state retirement pension is clearly important. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House earlier that the state pension remains the bedrock of Government pensions policy.
  Government policies for Britain's 11 million pensioners must be as wide-ranging as their different needs and characteristics demand. Our 11 million pensioners are not a homogeneous group; they are very different people.
  It must be acknowledged that many pensioners now are better off than could have been dreamed of 30 or 40 years ago. Before coming to the Chamber, I opened the latest report on households below average incomes. I knew that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was to propose the motion and that he is something of an expert on this series of reports, which he demonstrated this afternoon.
  The tables in the report tell us a great deal about the poorer members of our society. They tell us also a thing or two about some of the richer members of it. For example, 5 million of our 11 million pensioners are members of the richest 60 per cent. of the population, and 1 million are members of the richest 20 per cent. Most of us know from our family and friends and our own experience that that is the case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selby brought as evidence the position of his father, and I do the same. My father is 70 and he is not one of the super rich, but, like my hon. Friend's father, he was a teacher. He has an occupational pension and lives a quite comfortable life. During this interesting debate on the state retirement pension, my father has been sunning himself in Tenerife, along with thousands of other pensioners in Britain who take themselves abroad at this time of year for some warmer weather.
  I do not make that point to belittle the plight of pensioners who still face poverty. It is a scandal that so many pensioners still do face poverty. I make the point to

  597
  put the pensioner question into context. The rich-and-poor divide that scars our society affects pensioners as well as people in all other sections of society. I believe that different policies are required for these different groups to deal, first, with the immediate pressures that come with poverty and, secondly, and just as important—more important in the long term—to deal with the factors that cause poverty in our society in the long run.
  Against that background, I believe that the Government's approach is absolutely right. The measures that will help today's pensioners—the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel allowance, free eye tests, free television licences for the over-75s and all the other measures that were welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) with, as he said, admirable assistance from the Liberal Democrat councillors on his local authority—mean that the poorest pensioners in Britain are now £;10 a week better off if single, and £16 in the case of a pensioner couple.
  The second crucial piece of Government policy is the action that we are taking to prevent poverty in future generations of pensioners. We are dealing with the causes, not just the symptoms. The Government are introducing the state second pension and the framework for stakeholder pensions so that we can avoid poverty in future.
  Pensioner poverty is a huge problem and no one should underestimate that fact. The statistics on households below average income tell us that, between 1991 and 1997, a quarter of all single pensioners lived in poverty, not just for one of those years but for all six. They were trapped in poverty, with no prospect of an escape route. That has a severe impact on the life and quality of life of those pensioners.
  Nowhere is that seen more graphically than in terms of health and life expectancy. In Manchester, a typical man who is reaching the age of 65 can expect to live until he is 78—a further 13 years. However, he will spend only about seven of those years in good health. In Surrey today, a typical man reaching 65 years of age can expect to live until he is 80—a further 15 years—and enjoy 10 of them in good health.
  We must first accept that there are people in poverty who live in Surrey, just as there are reasonably well-off people who live in Manchester. The example brings two important points to our attention. First, people in better-off areas enjoy longer life and can expect healthier life, too. Secondly, pensioners in poorer areas need extra support from public services. The man from Manchester will die earlier but will require an extra year of support from the national health service, the local authority, the voluntary sector and so on. Pensioner poverty is about much more than 75p a week; it is about lifetime chances and public services, as well as income.
  I have been to many pensioner meetings, as have my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members. I am in no doubt that, if the Government were to increase the state retirement pension in line with earnings rather than prices, it would be extremely popular with a number of pensioner organisations and groups, not least those in my constituency. However, I do not favour that approach because I do not believe that it would help us tackle the problem of pensioner poverty now.
  We have heard several examples of the sums involved if the state retirement pension were increased—I think £13 billion was the figure given for an increase of
  598
  £30 a week. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) generously proposed an increase of £1 a week. An increase in the state retirement pension of £5 a week would mean, first, extra Government expenditure of £2.5 billion a year, which would of course be built on year on year, and secondly, a boost to the incomes of better-off people. The one group that such an increase would not benefit would be the poorest pensioners, who would lose every pound of that £5 in withdrawal of means-tested benefits. They would see the advantage taken away from them.
  There have been some interesting contributions to the debate on the issue of means testing—not least from the hon. Member for Gainsborough who follows the social security debate, and especially means testing, assiduously—but I grow impatient over it. The Government are often accused by their critics of taking measures that increase it.
  If the Government are to help the least well-off people, and if we leave aside, for the time being anyway, the fact that their long-term aim is to implement measures such as the state second pension and stakeholder pensions, to give carers, the low paid and people with disabilities the chance of a second pension that would take them above the poverty line in the long term, we must recognise that there has to be some measure of income and resources.
  No party or Government can run away from that fact. We may hear much rhetoric on the issue, but no other party has made a firm proposal to abolish means testing as part of their overall strategy. All parties have a responsibility to help to develop a different approach to the testing of income and resources—to try to foster a new mindset among the public.
  When means testing was operating in the 19th century and then in the 1930s, most people were poor, and the process was demeaning and stigmatising. However, times have changed; most people today are not poor. Together we should be able to create a new attitude to the testing of income and resources that reduces the stigmatisation process.
  Three measures could be helpful. First, the branding of the minimum income guarantee as a guarantee—an entitlement—is very helpful. It begins to get us away from the handout mentality. Secondly, it is extremely helpful that the year-on-year increase is in line with earnings rather than prices. Its value will therefore increase year on year.
  Many people do not claim means-tested benefits because they are of only marginal advantage. A lady came to my advice bureau the other day—not about pensions but in relation to another benefit—who had in the past claimed family credit and been only marginally better off. In the end, she had given up claiming. A few years went by; we introduced the working families tax credit, she made a new claim and now finds herself £70 a week better off. As people see a substantial difference by virtue of making a claim—it is worth their while—they will be more likely to claim. More pensioners will claim benefits as the minimum income guarantee increases.
  The third reason for optimism is that anybody who retires from 2010 will have no memory of times before the second world war. Perhaps the images of the 1930s and further back will therefore dim in the public's minds. We must be honest: no party will get rid of the means test. It is a necessary test of income and resources, and we need a more positive attitude towards it.

  599
  I said that I was somewhat disappointed by the narrow nature of the motion. I certainly hope that we have other opportunities in the near future to debate other issues that affect pensioners. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) introduced the issue of housing as it affects pensioners, because it is extremely important.
  In the Manchester part of my constituency, two thirds of pensioners live in rented accommodation—much of it local authority owned, some of it housing association property, and some private. Many of those pensioners are unhappy with the house in which they live. Some have medical problems and need adaptations to their houses, which take for ever to be made. If they need alternative accommodation, what is available is often unsuitable for their needs. Some have family living outside the area, but transferring to suitable accommodation can be difficult. Sometimes, their houses are too big, but often smaller and more suitable accommodation is not available. Pensioners' housing need is an issue that we must all address.
  One extremely important issue that has not been raised in this debate is the fact that 300,000 pensioners in Britain do not have access to a telephone. That is not necessarily a matter for the Government; it is one for telephone companies. Last week, a gas company announced that it would be abolishing the standing charge and restructuring its charging system to take account of that. If a gas company can do that, surely telephone companies can do something to connect the 300,000 pensioners who are isolated. It is great that pensioners are using the internet, but not if 300,000 of them cannot pick up a telephone to call for help when they need it.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of State promise that the issue of capital limits will be dealt with in this Parliament. That is so important. It is 12 years since the limits were set, but they have never been changed. Much can be done to help the poorest pensioners as and when the limits are altered.
  Complaints about the 75p increase in the state retirement pension pale into insignificance when compared with what the Government are doing for pensioners generally and for poorer pensioners in particular.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I apologise to the one or two hon. Members who have been unable to speak in this debate.
  This has been a very useful debate. Liberal Democrats make no apologies for focusing on the derisory 75p increase in the basic state pension which is to come into effect in April. All I want to do is to seek clarity on the stance of the official Opposition and of the many Labour Members who signed the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred.
  I shall try to address a few of the points made in the debate, starting with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who rightly said that the supposed demographic time bomb is a myth. The royal commission on long-term care and, indeed, the Select
  600
  Committee on Health, have comprehensively scotched that argument. If there was a time-bomb at all, it went off in the 20th century, and we managed to afford the costs of it. It is important to bear in mind the fact that we not only afforded a massive increase in the number of pensioners but were able to put in additional resources to improve the basic state pension. We should not forget that fact, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon drew our attention.
  The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the fact that we had changed our policy since the general election in respect of our manifesto commitment on the uprating of the basic state pension. That is true. It is fine and appropriate to consider policies and to keep them under review. It is a strange proposition that at no point should a party re-evaluate its position. The position that we have outlined sets us clearly apart from the other parties on the issue of pensioners and how to improve their circumstances.
  We have made it clear that we want a new £3 age addition to the basic state pension at 75, and we want to build on and increase to £5 the miserly 25p age addition at 80. Those are the first steps in improving the lot of the poorest of our pensioners.
  We should consider how to index the basic state pension to the basket of costs that pensioners face in reality. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others referred to the costs that are not properly factored into the calculation of the retail prices index, which is the current basis for uprating.
  The Minister spent quite some time talking about averages. He talked a lot less about the poorest of our pensioners. As we have established in this debate, although it is undoubtedly true that average pensioner incomes have increased, the figures ignore the situation of the long-term retired, whose incomes have declined because all too often they are uprated in relation to prices rather than earnings—whether occupational pensions or the basic state pension. Inflation has eroded the value of pensions, and has left pensioners in an increasingly difficult and hard-pressed situation.
  Where do the Conservatives stand? Very few of them stood in this debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They obviously had engagements elsewhere. Perhaps they were consulting pensioner constituents to find out their views. In a speech lasting 14 minutes, their spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), did not elucidate their policy or give the official Opposition's view of whether the basic state pension uprating this April is adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was right to pose that question, but the Conservatives did not answer it. They do not seem to want to say what their policy is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) rightly made the link between health equalities and the level of pensions. That was drawn out by the Government's own report—the Acheson report—in September 1988, which made it clear that there is a definite link between low incomes and poor health outcomes, to which several hon. Members referred.
  The proposition that we have put to the House tonight is that the 75p increase in the basic state pension is derisory. It will do nothing to meet the real costs of living with which pensioners are confronted every day. For most

  601
  pensioners, the pension increase will be consumed by, for example, the council tax increase. The poorest pensioners will be hit the hardest. Indeed, 870,000 people who are entitled to claim the so-called minimum income guarantee do not claim it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to the Government's research on take-up. A factor that he did not mention, which I think is highly relevant, is that 36 per cent. of the people who responded to the Government's research said that they would not claim the benefit: they would refuse to take up a means-tested benefit and would thus continue to live in poverty. The Government must consider that seriously. It is right that we urge people to take up the minimum income guarantee, and I hope that the campaign that the Government are about to launch is a success.
  Another 600,000 people are disqualified from the minimum income guarantee because they have savings of £8,000 or more. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport rightly talked about this new category of poor pensioners who live in properties which their income is no longer sufficient to maintain. That is a serious challenge for all hon. Members to think about: there is now no reward for thrift. The Government made matters worse when they decided to abolish the tax credit on dividends, as a result of which many pensioners lose £75 per annum.
  The largest group of pensioners who are missing out on the income guarantee are older women who, as a result of broken contribution records, often do not receive full basic state pensions. Currently, 1.5 million pensioners need income support. In the Green Paper that the Government published last year, they said:
  "People who work all their lives should not have to rely on means tested benefits."
  On the Government's own figures, at least another 1 million people will require means-tested income support by 2050.
  For some 1.4 million people, the minimum income guarantee will make no difference—those 600,000 who are disqualified because of the capital thresholds and those who have not claimed the benefit. That means that the minimum income guarantee is no guarantee at all.
  All the evidence shows that the poorest pensioners are the oldest pensioners. For example, by the Government's own definition, 80 per cent. of the over-80s live in fuel poverty. We want far more money to be put into the basic state pension. A more effective way of targeting money would be to target it on the basis not of means but of age. That is why we believe that the extra 25p that is added to the basic state pension at the age of 80, which has not been uprated since 1971, should be raised for the first time for many years to at least £5, and that there should be an age addition at the age of 75 of at least £3.
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to the proposal for 1p on income tax for education on which my party has campaigned. She was the first person in the debate to mention that, but to listen to her, one would have thought that it had been the substance of many speeches by Liberal Democrats. It is not our policy to use the 1p on income tax for education to fund pensions.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) questioned us about our proposal to use the surplus on the national insurance fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon outlined in some detail how that would work, but
  602
  I shall recap. Currently, there is an accumulated balance on the national insurance fund of £15 billion. Every year, £1 billion is added to that surplus. Our proposals for age additions would cost about £0.5 billion per annum—modest increases targeted to help those most in need. That is the difference between our approach and the Government's.
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was right to say that the country could afford to do more for pensioners through the basic state pension. That applies to the current generation of pensioners, but how will future pensioners fare? The Government's solution is to scrap the state earnings-related pension and put in its place the state second pension. The first full state second pension will not be paid until 2047. Eighteen-year-olds might have some hope that a state second pension will come to their aid when they retire, but only once they have been in the work force for 40 years, and only if they pass the relevant qualifying tests for credits.
  The Government are introducing the state second pension at such a slow rate that it makes snails look positively fast. By 2025, the state second pension will put in people's pockets an extra £1.30 a week. After 40 years in the work force, will the state second pension lift its beneficiaries out of the means test, which is what the Green Paper said it should do? The answer is no. The minimum income guarantee will very quickly overtake the combined sum of the basic state pension and the state second pension.
  The Government's amendment refers to people retiring on incomes above means-tested levels "in due course." That is a never-never land promise—it will never be redeemed by this or any Government. It prompts the question, when will the state second pension lift people above means-test levels? As it is currently framed in the legislation, it will not.
  Liberal Democrats believe that the 75p increase in the basic state pension from this April is a disgrace, derisory and an insult to the pensioners of this country. That is why tonight we shall go through the Lobby to vote for our motion, and we hope that other Members who feel the same way will do so as well.
  6.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) gave a passable impression of a "desiccated calculating machine" as he bombarded us with statistics and with facts and figures. It was just the kind of passionate, almost addictive, number crunching that Nye Bevan would have held in disdain.
  I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is well informed. The problem with his argument is its assumption that other people, both in the House and outside, are less well informed than he is. His argument demands total credulity: it asks us to believe every word that he says now. It also demands collective amnesia: it asks us to forget everything that the Liberal Democrats have said before.
  The motion states that uprating the basic state pension in line with the retail prices index is inadequate, yet, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, just over two years ago the Liberal Democrat election manifesto said:
  "The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices."

  603
  Moreover, the Liberal Democrats gave a perfect description—in glowing terms—of the minimum income guarantee that the Labour Government have introduced. They said that they would
  "Guarantee everyone an acceptable minimum standard of living in retirement. We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners below the Income Support level. This will be indexed to earnings".
  As most hon. Members know, the Liberal Democrats made those promises in a manifesto which—despite the ability of some of them to play with figures—displayed their inability to do basic sums. It contained spending pledges that would have cost some 5p in the pound in additional income tax, or some £600 per family. The Liberal Democrats promised to raise revenue, and to fund their pledges across the broad spectrum of Government expenditure, by putting 1p on income tax—should it prove necessary: they did not even give a guarantee that they would do that. We have heard confirmation this evening that not a scrap of the money raised from that 1p would go to pensioners. Every bit would support the Liberal Democrats' education plans—plans, incidentally, which have been funded to a far greater extent by this Labour Government.
  Mr. Chris Pond: My hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) suggest earlier that Governments since the war had done more than link pensions to earnings. He may wish to stress that the present Government have done much more than that: indeed, the earnings link in itself may have been the easy option. Has he the shadow of a suspicion that, had this Government simply linked the basic pension to earnings, we would today be debating an Opposition motion demanding that we introduce a minimum income guarantee and increase it in line with prices?
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend is well versed in these matters, and he is absolutely right. Had we restored the link with earnings, the increase in spending on pensioners from the social security budget would have been less than it will be in the lifetime of this Parliament. By the end of the current Parliament, this Labour Government will be spending some £4 billion more per year on pensioners.
  As my hon. Friend suggests, had we restored the earnings link—as the Liberal Democrats now imply that we should have—there would have been the same cost inflation. That is what Liberal Democrat policies would have brought about. The problem is that the Liberal Democrats produced a manifesto in which their sums did not add up, and they have now added yet more expenditure by promising more to pensioners, without explaining how—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must not shout at each other across the Floor.
  Mr. Bayley: If the Liberal Democrats wish to increase expenditure, they owe it to the public, and to pensioners in particular, to explain how they are going to do that.
  Pensioners are bright. They are too bright to be taken in easily by a bit of flexible arithmetic. During the last Parliament, I went to a public meeting to talk to the York
  604
  pensioners association, which I had established. It was one of the first things that I did after being elected. I went to the meeting days after the Labour party had decided, in policy terms, to opt for targeting rather than raising the basic state pension in line with earnings—which had been our policy hitherto, as hon. Members know.
  To be blunt, I expected a pretty rough ride. After I had said my piece, a woman pensioner stood up and said, "I am glad you said that, Mr. Bayley. When the Labour party promised the earth, I rather wondered where they would find the money." When a party makes promises without explaining how they will be funded, it has no credibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) did not argue that the Government should restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings, but he did argue that they should do more than provide price indexation for pensioners as a whole. Similar points were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
  All my hon. Friends recognise that the Government are doing substantially more for the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee, but we are also doing more than simple price indexation for all pensioners. We are doing more by means of services such as eye tests, and the concessionary fares proposal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will introduce in legislation during the current Session; but we are also doing more by introducing, for instance, the winter fuel supplement, which applied to all pensioners.
  Initially, the winter fuel supplement was to be higher for pensioners on low incomes. It was to be £50 for pensioners receiving income support, and £20 for other pensioner households. However, partly in response to arguments such as those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood—for instance, the argument that all pensioners should receive increases that are more than merely price indexed—this year we were able to announce a fivefold increase in the value of the winter fuel addition to £100. That is nearly £2 per week, in addition to the 75p. It is entirely wrong to suggest that the Government are leaving all pensioners with a mere 75p; we are providing additions for all pensioners on top of that.
  I know, and every member of the Government knows, that many pensioners want us to do more. Many want us to restore the link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) pointed out, if it were just a matter of spending, it could be said that the Government had done more than meet the cost of restoring the link. An extra £800 million has been added to social security expenditure on pensioners as a result of the introduction of the winter fuel addition and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners— £800 million more than would have been the cost of uprating pensions in relation to earnings over the three years during which we have been in government so far.
  Of course, the Government have a choice. If we deemed it right, we could spend the money on an equal increase in the basic state pension for all pensioners; alternatively, we could target more on the pensioners who need help most.

  605
  The Government are serious about reducing poverty. When we published our first poverty report in September, many people, including most of the commentators in the newspapers, were taken aback at the boldness of our commitments and at the transparency of the indicators that we intend to use to monitor our success in reducing poverty. We put ourselves on the line and for a simple reason: we are committed to reducing poverty. If we are going to meet those ambitious goals, we will have to ensure that we target resources on those who need them most: the poor.
  Think of the Government's inheritance when they came to office just over two and a half years ago. Pensioner incomes increased significantly between 1979 and 1997, a point that was made by hon. Members from the official Opposition. Indeed, over that period, average pensioner income rose faster than average earnings, yet, at the same time, the gap between the incomes of the poorest pensioners and other pensioners increased dramatically. Our priority is to direct more help to those who have been hardest hit through the 18 years of Conservative pension policy.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister refers to those who have been hardest hit. Presumably, the small saver would come into that category. Will he explain why the Government have for three years retained the Tory capital limits—they have frozen them each year? He has promised action by the end of the Parliament. Why do pensioners have to wait that long? A year ago, the Government promised action soon. Why are we having to wait?
  Mr. Bayley: The Government have promised to address capital limits. We will do so during the lifetime of the Parliament. The Liberal Democrats, who promise the earth without taxation commitments to pay for their promises, ask for yet another promise. Each year—pensioners understand the policy—the Government have introduced benefits for pensioners over and above price indexation. Each year, we have done things that have reduced the costs that pensioners face and that have increased pensioner incomes. The hon. Member for Northavon is wrong to shake his head because we have reduced the fuel costs that pensioners face; we have provided fuel supplements for all pensioners. During the lifetime of the current Parliament, we will continue to do that year by year. We have made an absolutely fundamental commitment—which, incidentally, the Liberal Democrats did not make—to deal with capital limits during the lifetime of the Parliament. That we will do.
  If we increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, every pensioner would gain, except those on income support. Those on income support would lose every pound of the pension rise from their income support payment—from the minimum income guarantee. Instead, by targeting that money on the minimum income guarantee, we are helping the poorest pensioners substantially.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood also raised the capital limits issue. He did so to explain why he put his name to the early-day motion that has been discussed by quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the commitment that the Government have given to address the issue. We are looking at the issue now and we will address it during the current Parliament.
  606
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made a lot of important and useful points about the importance of a take-up campaign to ensure that pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee take it up, but he made one suggestion that I should like to discuss a bit further: that perhaps the take-up campaign should be run by any organisation other than the Benefits Agency because it was a tarnished commodity and would put people off claiming.
  My hon. Friend is aware that we have changed the law to enable organisations other than the Benefits Agency to take information and to process a minimum income guarantee application. If someone is applying for housing benefit, for example, that other organisation could take information from the local authority. That is a welcome step forward, but I counsel against writing the Benefits Agency out of the equation. One of the problems with the Benefits Agency that we inherited was that it was simply a passive payer of benefits, rather than an active part of the welfare system. We need to ensure that the image of the Benefits Agency changes and that it is involved with a wide range of other agencies in spearheading the campaign.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made the point that additional help is needed for older pensioners. He asked whether the minimum income guarantee should be changed to achieve that. The minimum income guarantee already provides higher rates of guaranteed minimum income for older pensioners. As most hon. Members will know, for a single pensioner, the minimum income guarantee guarantees an income of £75 a week at current rates, but for a single person aged over 75, the rate is £95.60 a week. For a single person aged over 80, it is £101.30.
  Mr. Fearn: I asked the Minister to come forward with priorities, so that the 37 per cent. of older women who are not claiming at the moment do claim.
  Mr. Bayley: The Liberal Democrats have a simple choice. Either they put whatever resources are available in the hands of all older pensioners, in which case there is not much money to go round, or they target it at the poorest older pensioners. If their objective is the same as the Government's—to reduce poverty among older pensioners on the lowest incomes—they will applaud what the Government are doing and agree with us that the minimum income guarantee is the right way to provide dignity to people in retirement who have not been able to put aside resources for private pension provision. If the Liberal Democrats want to abolish poverty, they should join us and ensure that the minimum income guarantee works.
  Hon. Members have not spoken much about the need to create a pension system that ensures that people do not need to fall on means-tested benefits, but the Government are creating such a system with legislation that we passed last year to create stakeholder pensions and with the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently before the House. That will create the state second pension and reform the state earnings-related pension to provide a better return for people on the lowest earnings. For those earning under £9,500 a year, the state second pension will provide twice the pension on maturity that SERPS provides at the moment.

  607
  The problem with the state earnings-related pension lies within the name itself: it is earnings related, so it is the poorest people at work who get the lowest pensions. We are reforming that with a state second pension. We are also providing credits to carers and to disabled people whose employment record has been disrupted by their state of health.
  For today's pensioners, we are providing substantially more than simple price indexation. We abolished VAT on fuel, as we promised we would. We reduced it to the lowest level allowed under legislation that the Conservatives agreed with Brussels.
  The Government have abolished the gas levy. We have introduced the winter fuel allowances, and increased them fivefold to £100 per household—which is almost £2 per week on top of the indexation to be introduced from next April.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 300.

  Division No. 27]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Baker, Norman

  Ballard, Jackie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brake, Tom

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Breed, Colin

  Moore, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Sanders, Adrian

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

  Chidgey, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Tyler, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Harvey, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Bob Russell and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Edward Davey.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Best, Harold

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ashton, Joe

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Browne, Desmond

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cann, Jamie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Caplin, Ivor

  Benton, Joe

  Casale, Roger

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Caton, Martin

  608

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Jenkins, Brian

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dowd, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCabe, Steve

  Flynn, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McFall, John

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fyfe, Maria

  McIsaac, Shona

  Galloway, George

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gapes, Mike

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  McNulty, Tony

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWilliam, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Grogan, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hain, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  609

  Morley, Elliot

  Savidge, Malcolm

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

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mudie, George

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mullin, Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Singh, Marsha

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Norris, Dan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Olner, Bill

  Snape, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Soley, Clive

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Pearson, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Stevenson, George

  Plaskitt, James

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stringer, Graham

  Purchase, Ken

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rammell, Bill

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Todd, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Touhig, Don

  Roy, Frank

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Walley, Ms Joan

  610

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wood, Mike

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woodward, Shaun

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  White, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  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 notes that the Government inherited a situation where increasing numbers of pensioners were living in poverty and where, if nothing had been done, one in three people would have retired on to means-tested benefits by the middle of this century; congratulates the Government on the start it has made in dealing with these problems; applauds in particular the introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee, benefiting one and a half million pensioner households, and welcomes the Government's commitment to raising it in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament and to conducting a take-up campaign to ensure that pensioners get what they are entitled to; supports the Government's commitment to helping pensioners, including the restoration of free eye tests and the new winter fuel payments, which benefit over seven million pensioner households and will be paid every year from now on; welcomes the Government's commitment to extending further help with pensioners' needs, including free television licences for people aged 75 or over from next autumn and the extension of concessionary public transport fare schemes; supports the Government's commitment to letting pensioners benefit more from their savings through the minimum tax guarantee which now means that two thirds of pensioners now pay no income tax; and welcomes the Government's plans to reform pensions, through the new stakeholder pensions and second state pension, so that everyone who puts in a full life of working or caring will in due course be able to retire on an income above means-tested levels.

  Post Office Services
  [Relevant documents: The Eleventh Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998–99, on the Horizon Project for Automated Payment of Benefits through Post Offices (HC 530), the Twelfth Report, Session 1998–99, on The 1999 Post Office White Paper (HC 94) and the Government's responses thereto (Session 1999–2000, HC 50).]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter that I think that you will be interested in, and concerned about. I attended a debate in Westminster Hall last Wednesday—and a very good debate it was—on the problems of post offices and post office closures, which concern every hon. Member. It was an interesting debate, to which many hon. Members contributed and the Minister responded with a helpful and concerned speech. All present appreciated his promise to look into various issues.
  One sitting day later—Thursday was the only other sitting day since then—the Liberal Democrats have chosen to debate the same subject. Madam Speaker is now responsible for two Chambers, whereas before we had just one. Does she have any control over whether both Chambers debate the same subject at the same time, or whether they debate one subject and another—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The House has decided that the issue is so important that it should be debated again.
  Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman must be fair. He is eating into time that has been allocated to an Opposition party.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the continuing decline under successive governments in the sub-post office network which is contributing to growing financial exclusion especially among pensioners and other low-income groups; regrets the Government's intention to press ahead with automated credit transfer from 2003 which will lead to further large scale closures and will deny freedom of choice; and urges the Government to postpone automated credit transfer until the Post Office has developed its own automated platform and, as part of the Universal Service Obligation, require Post Office Counters to maintain a sub-post office network which satisfies broad social and economic as well as narrow financial criteria of viability.
  In reply to the point of order, you stole my opening lines, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to acknowledge from the outset that the issue has aroused a great deal of interest in the House. We have had a succession of debates, one of which was held last week. There was another in October, prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and yet another in July. It is right that the issue should be debated frequently. We are all concerned about it. Every constituency has post office branches under threat. Some 28 million people use the post office system every week, through its branches. It is right that as many hon. Members as possible should
  612
  wish to say something about the issue. Some of the Minister's answers in last week's debate were reassuring, but many of them did not answer the key questions. That is why we have initiated the debate today.
  The network has gone through a long process of decline. I am sure that the Minister will reinforce that point. The process did not start two years ago. The branch network has been declining for 20 years, with about 200 closures a year. The tempo seems to have increased recently, going up to 230 or 240 closures a year, but we are dealing with a long-term trend.
  Everyone concerned has been alarmed by the impact of the compulsory change to automated credit transfer between 2003 and 2005. The Post Office will then lose the £400 million income that it derives from that service. That is important, because it strikes at the basic revenue stream of the post office network.
  The implications were spelled out in the answer to a helpful parliamentary question tabled a few weeks ago by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who asked for an estimate of the number of branches in each constituency at which benefits account for more than 40 per cent. of business. That would give a rough approximation of the impact of the change and show how many branches might be expected to close. It is just an approximation, but it is the only one that we have. The figures are instructive, pointing to an enormous cull of post office branches, particularly in inner city and rural areas. Some of the examples are striking. All hon. Members should look at the list to see how their constituencies might be affected.
  In the constituencies of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, two thirds of all branches could be expected to disappear, on this estimate. There is no respect for ideology. The leader of the Conservative party would lose 33 branches and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would lose 37. Some of the worst affected constituencies are represented by my hon. Friends. At the top of the hit list is my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who would lose 38 branches, but several other Liberal Democrat constituencies would lose well over 30, including Montgomeryshire, Orkney and Shetland and Torridge and West Devon. Most of the rural constituencies in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland would lose well over 20 branches. The impact could be substantial.
  The figures may be wrong. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reaction.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: My hon. Friend knows that the constituency of Ceredigion has many post offices that are likely to close. It has been estimated that half the post offices in mid-Wales will close. Will that not be a great deprivation for rural people on low incomes?
  Dr. Cable: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing Brecon and Radnor from the list, as it was mentioned. In Ceredigion, 40 branches are at risk—the second highest number in Britain. Before Ministers get out their atlases to find out where this constituency is—presumably they will have to visit it—they will need answers as to why Government policy on plausible assumptions will lead to the loss of roughly two thirds of post office branches.

  613
  There has been some evidence of panic recently, and the Secretary of State came up with a suggested partial remedy—a system of appeals. I would be interested to know what it amounts to. The proposal has been superimposed on another suggestion—made in the White Paper—that the regulator, when one is established, should set some objective, independent benchmark for deciding when post office branches should remain open or closed. It is important that we understand how this mechanism is to work if we are to understand how these closures, if they take place, are to be managed.
  I can visualise a situation where 200 branches are closing a year, or four a week, and where we have a meaningful system of appeals on which judgments are made as to the continuation of the branch in question. However, if 40 branches are closing a week, how will the system handle it? If the branches are simply not viable because of the loss of Post Office income, what is the purpose of the appeal? The principle of an appeals system when the system itself is not financially viable raises all sorts of basic questions.
  I have doubts as to the capacity of Post Office Counters, as currently structured and motivated, to handle the system. In July, in an Adjournment debate, I raised the case of one of my constituents who had her business effectively expropriated by Post Office Counters, which closed the branch, with no meaningful appeal. She has lost her money. The branch has reopened down the road, with an inferior service. All that has happened, apparently, is that Post Office Counters has pocketed the franchise fee.
  As a result of the debate, the criminal investigation branch of the Post Office has been set upon this postmistress. No charges have been pressed, but there has been a great deal of harassment. When her lawyers asked why this had taken place, they were told that my constituent was being taught a lesson for bringing the matter to Parliament. That is the way some people in the Post Office network are operating.
  It is not simply a question of allowing appeals against closures. It is necessary also to have a system by which postmasters and postmistresses are given some security of tenure so that they can continue their business. We need a transparent system in which complaints can be measured, and a Post Office Counters regime which is genuinely entrepreneurial and committed to keeping branches open.
  I have cited one example that angered me greatly, but many hon. Members will know of cases of small branches being closed down. The branches are then re-advertised on a part-time basis by Post Office Counters, which makes it clear that there is no prospect of the business being continued.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is worse than just a question of financial viability? In my constituency, 58 per cent. of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses live on site, and have mortgages and loans that are integral parts of their business. If they lose their businesses, they may also lose their homes.
  Dr. Cable: Absolutely. That is why we need a system of appeals, and why we need to protect the security of postmasters and postmistresses who are basically
  614
  entrepreneurs in an insecure environment. I challenge the Minister to give us his own estimate of the impact of the loss of Post Office income. It may be that the figures that I have cited are implausible. However, they could be much worse.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that unnecessary scaremongering can undermine the post office network? I have visited post offices in my constituency, and the myths being peddled by both main Opposition parties are severely undermining them. Does he agree that he needs to be measured in his approach?
  Dr. Cable: I do not know whether I am scaremongering. The figures that I have cited were produced in response to a perfectly fair question from a Labour Back Bencher. If those figures are wrong, the Minister might explain how the Post Office itself estimates the loss of income's impact on the network. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the impact will be a great deal worse. One of the reasons for that is that when people spend money in a post office, there is a footfall effect—they spend money on other things. It is not simply the loss of the benefit income.
  Another factor is that it is not simply the benefit business that is at risk. Other fee transactions of the Post Office—such as drivers' licences—could disappear also. We have seen recently that the working families tax credit is taking another source of benefit income out of the Post Office. The impact could be much worse than the figures that I have quoted. That is the answer to the charge of scaremongering.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) falls within the area covered by The Western Morning News, a well respected regional newspaper. The information that it carries from postmasters and postmistresses in her constituency is entirely supportive of the point that my hon. Friend is making. It has been suggested by a number of Government supporters that this problem will arise only in the future—from 2003 onwards. However, I have constituents who have been sent benefits information which specifically rules out the use of a post office account and demands information about their bank accounts.
  Dr. Cable: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I wish to refer also to what will happen to those excluded people when ACT comes in. We are concerned not just with the impact on the branch network, but the impact on the individuals who receive their benefits.
  What is involved here is a system of compulsion. There is voluntary ACT at present, and people do use their own bank accounts for the settlement of benefits. Roughly 48 per cent. of pensioners choose voluntarily to use their bank accounts. However, that figure is much lower for poorer people—under 10 per cent. of people on income support, for example. There will have to be considerable pressure to stop people using post offices and to get them to use bank accounts. That is the essence of the problem— the element of coercion.
  The Government may reply that they are tying up deals with the banks, so that people will continue to be able to use the hole in the wall and their arrangements will not

  615
  be changed fundamentally. But if it is true that large numbers of branches have to close, the post office will no longer be there to be used as a bank, so choice will no longer be present.
  Separate problems have been highlighted by groups such as Age Concern, the Townswomen's Guild—it is difficult to think of a less militant organisation—and the Retail Village Network. One could not accuse such responsible lobbying organisations of scaremongering. These groups are focusing on the problems of the 20 per cent. of people who use post offices but do not have bank accounts.
  How will the Post Office identify the people who do not have bank accounts? How will the Post Office establish criteria for deciding who should continue to be paid in the traditional way because they cannot have a bank account—people who are bankrupt, for example— and those who choose not to have a bank account? How, in fact, will the distinction be made?
  Another large group of people, for reasons of personal choice, have traditionally decided that although they have a bank account, they would much rather use post offices. Probably half of all those who use the Post Office system are in this category. Why do they choose not to use their bank accounts? One reason is geographic: only about 5 per cent. of rural parishes have banks and the number is declining as branches close, but 60 per cent. have post offices. There would be a high cost involved in going to the nearest town to transact the business.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the view of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) was roundly contradicted only last Wednesday in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), who rightly expressed the gravest concern for the future, under Government proposals, for people who do not have bank accounts?
  Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman: that is indeed the case.
  Why else might people choose not to use their bank accounts? There is legitimate anxiety about the costs of banking. What assurance is there that money paid into a bank account will not be offset against an overdraft? What hidden charges will go with the new arrangements between the banks and the post offices? How will the scheme fit with the plans of Barclays and others to start charging for using automated telling machines? Barclays and the Co-operative bank have already entered into arrangements, but will a pensioner using another bank who draws £10 for the weekend have to pay £1 for the transaction? There may be good answers, but we have not yet had them.
  We need to be clearer about what happens to people who cannot collect their benefits in person. We all know people in that category. Their carers collect for them. There is no problem with that at the post office, where there is an established relationship, but we know that it is much more difficult in the banking system. I had to take all the way to the chairman of the Halifax the case of a blind lady with a carer who ended up paying £60 for a legal notary's signature to establish the authenticity of the person drawing the money. Banks can be highly inflexible, bureaucratic and expensive.
  616
  We need answers to all those questions before people can have any confidence that the arrangements can be sustained properly.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: It is also important for some mothers to collect child benefit direct from a post office or sub-post office, because their only other access to money may be via their husband in a joint bank account. It is terribly important for them to maintain that independence.
  Dr. Cable: That is a helpful additional point, and the welfare campaign groups have already drawn attention to many others.
  The Minister may be able to help us with solutions to some of the problems, but we need to know what is driving the change in the first place. Why is it so urgent that we press ahead? Two important, possibly compelling, reasons are given. One is that the system is necessary to defeat fraud; the other is that it is very costly— £400 million a year in transaction costs—to have a paper-based rather than an electronic system.
  We need to deal with those serious challenges in turn. My understanding—I am open to contradiction by the Minister—is that the best way of dealing with fraud at the post office is to have bar-coded books. Why was that option never pursued? The previous Government expensively pursued the option of swipe cards. I am not sure who carries most blame for the sorry tale, but somehow or other £300 million of taxpayers' money slipped through the cracks and the whole project has been abandoned.
  The Trade and Industry Committee produced a devastating report explaining the enormous waste of public money on that false lead in dealing with the fraud problem. The Committee's members will be familiar with the key paragraph that makes it clear that the swipe card system was abandoned at such heavy cost primarily because the Benefits Agency, which was driving the whole exercise, was determined to save on the transaction costs and would not let the project be seen through to a conclusion.
  There is a real saving to be made on the £400 million transaction costs in moving from a paper-based to an electronic system, not merely a paper saving to the Benefits Agency, but what is the price that we will pay for that saving for the agency and, ultimately, for the Treasury? The Government may respond to the political pressure to compensate the Post Office for the loss of all the branches, and the payment, made through the deal with the banks or directly by the Treasury, could be large. If the network is to be preserved in that way, where will the saving come from?
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who originally presided over the system, said that it was very likely that, if the Government were serious about trying to maintain the post office network, the £400 million saving would simply disappear; so why go through the upheaval? It is more likely, though, that that will not happen and that the Government will allow the network to decline. There will be an appeals system and some token effort to save branches here and there; the £400 million will be saved by the Treasury; but there will be a great cost to our rural, suburban and inner-city communities.

  617
  Which of the two directions are the Government going in? Will they provide substantial compensation for the loss to the post office network of £400 million of business, and how much of the network will they save? Are they driven by the Treasury or by the interests of the communities that we all serve?
  7.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the fact that the Government will be introducing a Bill to modernise the Post Office; notes the contrast with years of Tory inaction, that left the Post Office to decline; welcomes the reduction of the External Financing Limit and the ability to borrow which will boost the Post Office's ability to invest for the future, welcomes for the first time the clear commitment of the Government to a network throughout the United Kingdom of post offices which will be automated, and to introduce for the first time criteria for access to Post Office services; welcomes the fact that for the first time the Universal Service Obligation will be guaranteed in legislation; welcomes the study by the Performance and Innovation Unit which is looking at the future of the network; and notes that the policies of the Opposition would undoubtedly lead to the decline of the Post Office."
  The Government are deeply committed to the protection of postal services for all customers now and in the future. That is why we published in July our White Paper "A World Class Service for the 21st Century", which will be presented to the House as a Bill in the near future.
  As the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said on a point of order, much has already been said in the House on our plans for the Post Office. Only last Wednesday, in what could be called a sub-office of this Crown office, I replied to the fourth debate on the post office network this Session. It might be helpful, however, if I repeat the steps that the Government are taking not only to secure access for customers to postal services but to equip the business for the challenges that it faces in the communications market of the 21st century.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Why, does the Minister think, have we had those four debates? I hope that he recognises that the issue is of the profoundest concern to many millions of our constituents.
  Mr. Johnson: I do indeed recognise that. I have said time and again that no one believes more than I do in the strength of the network and its importance to rural and urban areas. I merely pointed out that we are having something of a rerun of the same debate.
  We are committed to establishing a framework to enable the Post Office to develop to its full potential by providing the greater commercial and financial freedom that the business needs to tackle the triple challenge of globalisation, liberalisation and new technology, while ensuring that we retain the vital social obligations that make the Post Office such an important detail in the social fabric of our country.
  Over the past seven years, the challenge from overseas competitors has become ever more intense. At least six overseas postal administrations have established offices within a few miles of the House to entice British companies to print and post abroad. For years, overseas
  618
  postal administrations have exploited the fact that the Post Office has been operating with one hand tied behind its back, with negligible commercial freedom; with no ability to invest other than from retained profits; with large chunks of those profits siphoned off by the Exchequer; and with its future under constant review since 1992.
  The Post Office must have the freedom to compete in the radically changed postal market while continuing to provide services such as articles for the blind, post buses and its other social obligations, which are vital to the communities that it serves.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I appreciate the response that my hon. Friend gave in last week's debate in Westminster Hall and I am grateful for the informative material that he has given me as briefing in response to my constituents' queries. Postmasters in Queensferry, Golftyn, Wepre, Caergwrle and Saltney Ferry have been to see me or written to me about their concerns. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has done, but will he meet a small deputation of postmasters from my constituency later in the year?
  Mr. Johnson: I can never resist an invitation from my right hon. Friend. I will meet his constituents, just as I will go to East Anglia the week after next to meet sub-postmasters in that area and to the south-west the week after for the same reason. I understand the concerns on this issue, some of which have been expressed by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to invite him to my constituency or to the constituency of Ceredigion, where the issue is equally important. On a serious note, the Minister mentioned competitiveness, but how will depriving a sub-post office of 40 per cent. of its income make it more competitive? His response last Wednesday offered no cheer to those in that position.
  Mr. Johnson: I obviously cannot visit every constituency and talk to all postmasters, but I will tell local sub-postmasters and mistresses that they should be wary of opportunism by politicians that undermines the network and creates the very circumstances that we are all trying to avoid.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I visited post offices in Wales in September and if the Minister finds it too onerous to get around the country to visit them, I should be happy to share that responsibility with him.
  Mr. Johnson: That is not worthy of a response. It is obvious that I need to stay in the House to deal with the countless debates that we have on the Post Office.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has already done for the Crown post office in my constituency. It was closed, to the great frustration of the 450 businesses on the Slough trading estate, and I hope that he can continue with his good offices to bring the Post Office and Slough trading estate together to ensure that the people and businesses in my constituency, which he knows so well, get the post office service that they deserve.
  Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and I will do everything that I can to protect

  619
  postal services in Slough, where I was a postman for 15 years. Our plans to enable the Post Office to compete in the 21st century are set out in the White Paper. We have put forward a package of reforms that will maintain and improve postal services in this country and enable our Post Office to become a major global player while it is retained in public ownership.
  The record of the previous Government was lamentable. In July 1992, the Conservative Government announced that they would sell off Parcelforce and review the status of the rest of the business. By April 1997, having spent £1.5 million in consultancy fees, the Conservatives' manifesto said that, if elected, they would sell off Parcelforce and review the status of the rest of the business. They had promised in their 1992 manifesto to introduce a regulator and a number of other initiatives but, like the millennium wheel, they failed to start when they promised, and then just went round in a huge circle.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Post Office's situation today was largely created by the Conservatives and that, instead of criticising him because he cannot visit every constituency, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) should visit them all herself to apologise for the high development costs that the Conservatives caused?
  Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for those important remarks. In the early 1990s, the Labour party joined the Post Office trade unions and the British public to oppose vigorously the then Government's plans to break up and privatise the business. We argued for commercial freedom in the public sector. In the face of overwhelming opposition, the Conservatives eventually abandoned their plans but decided that, if they could not privatise the Post Office, they would plunder it.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Johnson: I give way to an hon. Member who knows all about those issues.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister mentioned the millennium wheel, but perhaps he should remember that the Prime Minister opened it a month ago, and it is not yet working. It is not likely to be working for another two months.
  Mr. Johnson: I am sure that we will be selling tickets for the millennium wheel over post office counters very soon.
  Responding to criticism of the fact that the Post Office had had to hand over £1 billion in 10 years to Government under the external financing limit, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), then President of the Board of Trade, announced in March 1995:
  "I am prepared to agree that, in future, we will aim to set the EFL at about half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profit. I hope to make progress in this direction this Autumn".
  A few months later, that pledge was ignored and, instead, the EFL was increased to cream off a further £1 billion over the following three years.
  620
  The Post Office touches people's lives like no other industry and is part of the country's infrastructure like no other business. It delivers to 27.5 million addresses six days a week. It collects from hundreds of thousands of pillar boxes seven days a week, and 28 million people each week use its network of sub and Crown post offices.
  Mr. David Heath: I hope that it will not be opportunistic if I intervene on behalf of the 150,000 members of the public who signed a petition in the Western Daily Press in support of their sub-post offices. If sub-post offices are to lose part of their income, how will it be replaced? If the Minister cannot answer that, how can sub-postmasters and mistresses plan ahead, put business plans together or have any hope of transferring their businesses to other owners?
  Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come on to those points in a few moments. I was setting out the Government's policy for reinvigorating the Post Office. The White Paper sets out a balanced package of reforms that will preserve those services and benefit the Post Office, its employees and its customers.
  Under the reforms, for the first time, we will create an arm's length relationship with Government, based on a five-year strategic plan, giving the Post Office greater freedoms to develop new products and services; to price commercially; and to borrow for growth investments. For the first time, we will introduce a tough, independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission, to promote and protect customer interests, set high-quality standards, regulate prices, and promote competition and innovation. We will strengthen consumer representation through a revamped and reinvigorated Post Office Users National Council and we will put additional resources into the Post Office, more than doubling the post-tax earnings that the Post Office can keep for investment, rather than paying to government. Also for the first time, we will enshrine the universal service obligation and the single uniform tariff in law, and we will establish access criteria to protect a nationwide network of post offices.
  As part of the package, we have already reduced the Government's take to a dividend at commercial levels— 50 per cent. of post-tax profits for 1999–2000, falling to 40 per cent. thereafter. We have allowed the Post Office to invest substantially overseas by approving the acquisition of German Parcel, an investment of nearly £300 million and we have allowed the Post Office to borrow up to £75 million each year without prior approval, a facility that it has already used for further smaller European acquisitions in the parcels market.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose —
  Mr. Johnson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has just walked into the Chamber. It really is bad manners for him to intervene in a debate to which other hon. Members wish to contribute.
  Mr. Bruce: I was here earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am most grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene.
  The Minister said that he was going to get universal service enshrined in law. Does that apply to the counters side of the business, as well as to the postal side?

  621
  At present, it is enshrined in the contract with the Department of Social Security that that service will be delivered universally.
  Mr. Johnson: One of the greatest crimes in the post office is to jump the queue, but I hope to cover that point later in my speech.
  Under the White Paper reforms, Post Office plc will be independent, publicly owned, and able to attract, quickly and effectively, the necessary interest from financial institutions that understand the plc model.
  Although I spoke about this matter at some length last Wednesday, let me underline our determination to secure the future of the Post Office Counters network. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly said, post offices have been closing at a rate of 1 per cent. of the network a year for 20 years. Neither the Government nor the Post Office can guarantee that no post office will ever close in the future but, for the first time, we will introduce access criteria laying down minimum standards to ensure that everybody in the UK has reasonable access to Post Office Counters services, particularly in rural parts of the country and in areas of social deprivation. The postal services commission and the users council will monitor the network against these criteria.
  The Horizon project is being put back on track and some 40,000 counter positions at more than 18,000 post offices will be equipped with a modern, on-line computer system to enable the Post Office to modernise and improve services to existing customers, and to win new business.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister set out the time scale involved? If the operation is not complete by 2003, when ACT will have pushed more people to use banks, it will not be effective in saving so many post offices. In what particular way do his plans differ from those of his Conservative predecessors? I recall that, when he was on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was only elected in 1997."] When the Minister's colleagues were in opposition, they stood four square with Liberal Democrat Members in attacking the very proposals that he is now pursuing.
  Mr. Johnson: I was amazed when I read the motion that we are debating. It has been public knowledge for some time that we will computerise the vast Post Office network by spring 2001. The migration to ACT will not even begin until 2003, and will be phased over the next two years.
  We realise that, for many people, this is a worrying time. The interest in this and previous debates on the subject underlines the public's high regard for the Post Office and the services that it provides.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to ask my question. He has said that Post Office services and rural post offices are safe with the Government. If that is so, what are the Liberal Democrats whingeing about?
  Mr. Johnson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks that question of others.
  The very fine speech made in Westminster Hall by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) last Wednesday intelligently and clearly set out the arguments
  622
  for those concerned about access to postal services. My hon. Friend had taken the time and trouble to look into the matter. His constituency was the pilot area for the use of benefit payments cards, and those hon. Members who are genuinely uneasy about those matters should read my hon. Friend's speech. He set the positive tone that others should follow if we are to avoid the network being blighted by politicians talking down the Post Office, as the Liberal Democrats have done again in the motion that we are seeking to amend.
  Mr. Phil Willis: I rise to help out the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). He stated earlier that the debate was a waste of time, but he has sat through all of it so far. I can tell the Minister what Liberal Democrat Members are whingeing about. In his response to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Minister has not yet answered the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). What is he offering to those sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses whose businesses will be on the edge when he takes away 40 per cent. of their business? What practical alternatives will he propose that will mean that those post offices are safe in the Government's hands?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should be patient. I have not yet finished my speech and, with the leave of the House, I intend to reply to the debate. All the points that have been raised will be covered—in fact, many of them were covered last Wednesday.
  This is a time of change, and change is sometimes unsettling. It is our duty to give a positive lead, and I am confident that our package of measures will give the Post Office and its customers a future to look forward to.
  The programmes that we have put in place for the Horizon project will provide post offices with an integrated and on-line IT platform that will modernise the way that they operate. Some cynical views have been expressed about the Treasury's role in this. However, I can tell the House that the Treasury is contributing £500 million to computerise and place on-line every post office in the country. It is inconceivable that that investment would be made only for the offices to close down afterwards.
  A key benefit from the project will be the Post Office's ability substantially to extend its existing arrangements with the high street banks, under which it provides a range of banking services on an agency basis. That is a vital factor also in the attack on social exclusion.
  The wider work that the Government have commissioned on the matter has demonstrated that financial exclusion is both a cause and an effect of social exclusion. It has highlighted the desirability of promoting the spread of bank accounts, and has shown that encouraging the unbanked— especially the disadvantaged—to open a bank account will provide financial as well as social advantages to them as individuals. It is also an important step in connecting the socially excluded to the mainstream.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Has the Minister received commitments from the clearing banks to provide universal access to banking services? Will they take any customer who goes to them wanting benefit payments? Will he indicate the charges that a clearing

  623
  bank might levy against benefit customers who want no other banking service apart from the complete encashment of their benefit payment, which is what they do at present with their girocheques?
  Mr. Johnson: As I said last week, we are confident that we will negotiate agreements with the clearing banks that will ensure the provision of the services that we want to be provided. We gave a clear commitment in last week's debate that benefit claimants will continue to be able to withdraw all their benefit cash across a post office counter, both before and after the change.
  Increasingly, benefit customers choose payment by bank account as their preferred method. One third of benefit recipients already choose to access their benefits payments via their bank account, and the trend is bound to accelerate. Working together, the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters will ensure that, from 2003, payment by ACT will offer an attractive and secure choice to benefit customers and to pensioners.
  Payment by ACT will open up access to a wider range of banking services and other financial services, while continuing to offer access to cash at Post Office Counters. Other bank customers, especially those in rural areas, will benefit from the wider availability of banking facilities, and the taxpayer will benefit from the fact that such a system will be much cheaper to operate and will virtually eliminate fraudulent encashment.
  The move to paying benefits direct into bank accounts via the existing automated credit transfer system will not start before 2003, as I said, and it will be phased in over two years. The Government will not take active measures to move customers on to automated credit transfer before 2003. With automation completed by spring 2001, Post Office Counters will have a further two years to grow new areas of work to compensate for what has always been an unhealthy and fragile over-reliance on Benefits Agency work.
  Given developments in banking technology, and with new simple banking products being introduced, we believe that it will be possible to cater to individual circumstances and provide accounts that will answer individual needs. The majority of benefits recipients— more than 80 per cent.—already have access to bank accounts. However, we recognise that some may still be unwilling to make use of a bank account. It is not our intention to compel them to do so. For such people, we are considering what alternative simple electronic money transmissions systems using ACT which could also be accessed at post offices may be commercially available. We recognise that benefits recipients will expect to be able to withdraw the exact amount of their benefits and to do so without incurring bank charges.
  I emphasise again that there will be no change to existing methods of benefit payment before 2003, and that all benefits recipients and state pensioners who wish to do so will be able to continue to access their benefits in cash, at post offices, both before and after the change.
  By moving to ACT, we will merely be replacing outdated paper-based methods of payment, which have scarcely changed in the past 50 years with a modern, more secure and more cost-effective system. Ensuring that
  624
  individuals will continue to be able to access their benefits and pensions in cash at post offices is fundamental to our plans.
  The Post Office network, with its nationwide reach, represents a valuable channel for the delivery of Government and other services, and will continue to do so in the future. The early progress with the Horizon automated platform now in prospect should enable Post Office Counters to offer substantial enhancements to the services that it can offer clients and customers, which in turn will increase the attractiveness of post offices compared with other channels.
  The network's extensive reach and the sense of trust and familiarity that many customers have in carrying out transactions in their local post office should, in conjunction with the Horizon system, ensure that the Post Office is well placed to deliver modern applications for central and local government and other public sector organisations. That is crucial in the light of the fact that the Government are committed to providing all Government services on-line by 2008.
  The Post Office has had some success in recent years in diversifying into new areas of business. The success of the lottery business carried out in post office outlets, the establishment of bureaux de change facilities—the Post Office is now the biggest dealer in the country—and personal insurance are notable examples.
  The strength of the Post Office's business lies in its ability to reach customers in all corners of the United Kingdom, but such an extensive network can prosper only if it continues to be used by the local community which it serves in rural and urban areas. If local communities value the presence of a post office outlet, as so many clearly do, their best guarantee of retaining it lies in making full use of the facilities on both sides of the business. To give credit where it is due, the Post Office continues to make every effort, particularly in rural areas, to keep a post office service operating. I shall look into the case raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about his constituent.
  Where suitable applicants to take over a post office cannot be found, community offices, based in village halls, pubs, and private homes are set up to maintain at least a range of key services.
  Mr. John Smith: On the point about the Post Office striving to maintain rural post offices in our communities, does my hon. Friend share my concern over the decision just last week of the Post Office in Wales to withdraw an offer of a sub-post office franchise to Julie Morgan of Garregwen in Bonvilston, just a few weeks after it had made the initial offer? We now do not have a post office between Cowbridge and Ely in south Wales—a distance of some 20 miles.
  Mr. Johnson: I will look into that important point. It reminds me of the fairly disparaging remarks made about the appeals process. As we discussed in Westminster Hall last week, the problem too often with post office closures and conversions from Crown offices, sometimes centrally located, into the back of hardware shops well out of the centre of town, is that the local community believes that there is no sufficient appeals procedure giving them the time and the opportunity genuinely to offer alternatives to that post office closing.

  625
  The appeals procedure that we announced just after Christmas was not in reply to a flood of post office closures—that is not what we are about. The procedure is to protect customers' interests and to provide a new focus in an area in which, too often, the local community has been ignored.
  Mr. Norman Baker rose —
  Mr. Johnson: I must come to a conclusion.
  We have repeatedly made clear our wish to see a thriving nationwide network of post offices. We understand the difficulties involved in transition, but the way to tackle the issue is not, as some local newspapers have suggested, to cling to the status quo. There is no surer route to stagnation and decline, as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters fully and wisely recognises. The future of the Post Office Counters network depends to an important extent on the skills and dedication of its managers and staff. Above all, it depends on its continued attractiveness to clients and customers as a channel for accessing products and services, and to sub-postmasters, who have invested more than £1 billion in the network, as an attractive business proposition.
  Through early progress with the Horizon platform now in prospect, the Post Office will continue to maintain a nationwide network of outlets which will provide customers with convenient access to its services and help counters to retain existing custom and attract new business. The establishment of access criteria will, for the first time, set out in law a Government commitment to monitor what is happening to the network and a requirement to act where necessary.
  The revamped consumer body and a new independent regulator will monitor the new arrangements and provide an effective voice for communities which fear that access may be impaired.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister accept a helpful intervention?
  Mr. Johnson: If it is helpful, yes.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I was encouraged because the Minister was good enough to reply an Adjournment debate that I secured on the subject. He mentioned that the Prime Minister had just set up, through the performance and innovation unit, a committee to look at the social value of post offices. Many of us are hanging a lot of hope and expectation on that. Can the hon. Gentleman add to his speech two or three sentences about the committee's: remit, and does it have any opportunity for considering alternative sources of income that might sustain some of these businesses in future?
  Mr. Johnson: That was helpful but premature—I am just coming to that point. The legitimate concerns expressed by hon. Members are being addressed by the performance and innovation unit study commissioned last autumn—on the very day of the Adjournment debate, I believe—and due to report directly to the Prime Minister. In that way, we can ensure the viability of a network that depends partly on Government but essentially on local communities continuing to make sufficient use of their post office and village shop.
  626
  The PIU study focuses clearly on the social obligations and the social value of the Post Office—a network that is socially necessary but sometimes not commercially viable. That is the principal aim of that examination.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend also draw to the Opposition's attention the report on access to financial services by the Treasury's policy action team? It goes into considerable detail about the role of post offices and sub-post offices in addressing social exclusion. As that is a criticism in the Liberal Democrat motion, I think that it is high time they read the report.
  Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
  Last Monday was the 160th anniversary of the introduction of the penny post and Rowland Hill's other great reforms. Those radical changes created the modern Post Office by transforming an organisation that had, even in 1840, been a central feature of British life for 300 years. In Victorian Britain, the Post Office dealt with 75 million items every year. It now handles that volume every working day.
  Our reforms are the most radical since Rowland Hill's, but they preserve the principles of accessibility, affordability and, above all, public service that he established. I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
  8.9 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sent hon. Members his "Dear colleague" letter last May, announcing out of the blue that the Government had decided to change their action on benefit payments through the post office network, we waited for a month for the imminent White Paper. In July 1999, when the Secretary of State introduced the White Paper, we discovered that no viable option was on offer that would give hope for the future to many of our smaller, more sparsely spread post offices. Within a week, the Conservative party used a half-day Opposition debate to bring the matter to the Floor of the House. We thought the matter so important that that was our immediate reaction.
  Since then, there have been many debates on the Post Office, including the one that I attended last week in Westminster Hall. The issue keeps coming before us, and Ministers keep having to come to the Dispatch Box, because there is great uncertainty. So much time has elapsed since the statement last July that post offices are already feeling the pinch. People trying to dispose of their businesses, and others considering buying a post office, are taking into account the prospect of a 30 per cent. drop in revenue by 2003.
  Those of us who represent large rural constituencies know—although this is not an exclusively rural matter; I am equally concerned about post offices on the suburban fringe—that unless we receive answers to the many questions raised about the Government's change in policy, the situation will become worse long before the change to automated credit transfer, which the Government are determined to push through in 2003.
  Mr. Livsey: The hon. Lady makes some cogent points about rural areas and their post offices. Does she agree,

  627
  however, that there was a cut in the hours during which sub-post offices were allowed to operate under the previous Conservative Government? That often made the business unviable, particularly when a new tenant took it over. Will she pledge that the Conservatives will not reduce the hours of sub-post offices in future?
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the fact that the sub-post office network has been under pressure for some time. No one who has day-to-day dealings with constituency cases would deny that. However, I can think of cases in which hours went up as well as down. The hon. Gentleman's point is important because of changes in the structure of services provided by post offices, and, particularly, because of changes in the businesses in which they are located, which are as key to their viability as the Post Office itself. The post office has sometimes become the village shop, which has diminished the service. We all know that people often shop once a week outside their villages, and for that and many other reasons the position of the village post office has worsened.
  We face a change in the policy that the Government inherited. Their proposals leave many questions unanswered. We do not know what sort of post office network we shall have in 2003, if the Government have their way. People will be obliged to have benefits paid into a bank account, although the Minister has told us tonight that they may be able to receive their benefits in cash through electronic transfer. He told us that there will be no cost to the people concerned, but we should like to know his estimate of the costs of the new system by comparison with the costs of the one he inherited. Who will pick up the transaction cost?
  The Minister was asked those questions by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), and I asked them last week and last July. Seven months after the July statement, the Minister remains unable to answer specific questions. The Secretary of State changed the policy last May. He did so without any idea of what system would replace the existing one. Since then, there have been all sorts of suggestions about how the Government would shore up what will clearly be a significant drop in revenue. We believe that there is a question mark over the viability of 50 per cent. of the country's 18,000 sub-post offices.
  The Secretary of State leapt into the press the moment he heard that Camelot and the Post Office would put together a joint venture for a renewal of Camelot's lottery licence. There was nothing wrong with that bid; let us hope it is successful. However, the Secretary of State's argument that that would help rural post offices merely flagged up his lack of knowledge both of the lottery system and of what happens when there are terminals in small outlets in rural areas.
  I have had to write to Camelot repeatedly about small post offices or shops that had terminals but were unable to maintain 3,000 transactions a week. Terminals have been withdrawn from many of them, and many hon. Members will have had the experience of fighting to have terminals restored. One advantage of having a lottery terminal in a post office is that the terminals increase the
  628
  footfall of people passing through the premises. Those people buy other things and carry out other transactions, which helps the viability of the unit.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I am extremely interested in the hon. Lady's views on the Post Office. Between now and 2003, when migration starts, there will be a general election. Will the Conservatives fight that election on the platform of privatising the whole of the Post Office, or do they intend to break it up and privatise only half of it?
  Mrs. Browning: What an extraordinary question. The Labour Government are going to privatise the Post Office, and they plan to introduce a Bill any day now. We look forward to reading it, and the Conservative manifesto will reflect the changes that the Government make to the Post Office before the general election. The Secretary of State promised that the Bill would turn Royal Mail into a public limited company and that the Government would own 100 per cent. of the shares. During the recess, however, the Secretary of State said that the Government might not own quite 100 per cent. We want to know what privatisation package the Government intend. Once we have seen what we will inherit, we will produce a manifesto telling the British people what we will do.
  I am flattered that the Minister wants to know what our manifesto will say, but tonight's debate is not about our manifesto but about the policy that the Government inherited from the Conservative party, which would have secured the payment of benefit. The Minister rightly said that they would have to move away from the old-fashioned system of paper transactions towards the use of a swipe card and, ultimately, a smart card. Answers to oral and written questions gave us every reason to believe, until 29 May last year, that the Government intended to do that.
  Some Members in the Chamber this evening were not in Westminster Hall last week when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who served both as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and for Social Security, pointed out that if the post office network was going to survive, there would have to be a change in systems and technology, and the network would have to be underpinned by the presence of a customer that pays out benefits—the Government. We fought the last election on that principle, but the Government have changed that policy.
  Mrs. Gilroy: The hon. Lady was trying to make a point about the decision taken by the Government in May 1999. I am sure that she has studied in great detail the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which notes:
  "We do not fault Ministers for taking the decision they did in May 1999 in these circumstances. We have not regarded it as part of our task to come to a judgement on decisions taken prior to May 1997; it may be that the inquiry by the Comptroller and Auditor General will cast light on such decisions."
  Is the hon. Lady looking forward to dealing with that report?
  Mrs. Browning: Of course I am. If there are criticisms about the system and the contracts that were drawn up, that is a legitimate matter for inquiry. However, it in no way detracts from the fact that the Conservative party went into the previous election with a policy that would have ensured that the payment of benefits through post

  629
  offices was maintained, with Post Office Counters as a customer of the Government—£400 million of taxpayers' money would have been legitimately used through the post office network to pay out benefits. That would have helped to ensure a viable future for those post offices.
  As the hon. Lady is interested in Select Committee reports, I advise her to note the statement that
  "Ministers have been less than candid in their responses to the House and to this Committee".
  Will she ask Ministers what the Select Committee meant by that?
  Mr. Ian Bruce: In his speech, the Minister did not touch on the matter of universal service in respect of counter delivery. In my constituency, five or six rural post offices have been threatened with closure. On each occasion, I have reminded the Post Office of its contract with the Department of Social Security—it has to provide, wherever possible, universal service of counter delivery for the payment of benefits and pensions. The Post Office agrees with me about that universal service provision. The Labour Government are about to remove it. When they have done so, no Member of Parliament will be able to ensure that one of their rural post offices does not close.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The heart of the matter—as hon. Members have pointed out this evening, and as I did on 15 July—and the reason for the Government's change of policy is not that they have suddenly discovered that IT will be of benefit to post offices. Of course it will be. The Conservative party had already realised that post offices needed to be equipped with computers, not only for benefit transactions but so that they could increase their ticketing and banking business—a range of other opportunities that are not open to them, but which will be when they have computers. What this is all about is a £400 million smash-and-grab raid by the Treasury. Does it not sound a pretty paltry amount compared to the amount of damage that its withdrawal will cause?
  As always, when the Treasury wants to claw some money from the Department of Trade and Industry, DTI Ministers and their Secretary of State roll over and play dead. They put up no defence; they do not even consider the consequences of what that withdrawal will mean. Instead, they let the Treasury have its way; they do the Treasury's bidding, and when the problems flood in they set up committee after committee and scheme after scheme to try to shore up the damage.
  The DTI team, with a former Treasury Minister as Secretary of State—indeed, almost all the ministerial team are former Treasury Ministers—should have seen this matter coming. They should have realised that they are no longer Treasury Ministers and that, although of course their job is to modernise the Post Office to facilitate the improved technology, they should have considered the knock-on effect of their policies. That point is not confined to the DTI; it has become a hallmark of the Government. They announce something, spin it and spend months looking for solutions to the problems that they have created, causing indecision and uncertainty.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Lady makes some extremely good points, with many of which I agree. However, I find it rather difficult to reconcile her position
  630
  with that of the hon. Member for South Hams, who seems to prefer the Government's policy to that of the hon. Lady, and would perhaps describe her remarks as whingeing. Will she attempt to make that reconciliation for us?
  Mrs. Browning: I should be delighted to reconcile Members on the Liberal Benches with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I have known my hon. Friend for many years. I am not sure how long the reconciliation will take me but, in a spirit of co-operation, I am willing to do it. However, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frame (Mr. Heath) misjudges my hon. Friend, who is most active in his rural constituency in supporting his rural post offices. No doubt when we all meet for drinks, a chat and a bit of counselling, we shall be able to sort things out, but I think that my hon. Friend was concerned about the fact that, although there was a good debate in Westminster Hall, which made an extremely valuable contribution to the subject, it was a pity that the debate was held there because only a limited number of Members were able to speak. Furthermore, only a limited number of people were able to attend the debate.
  Mr. Steen: As my hon. Friend is aware, my constituency is now Totnes, not South Hams. The Liberal Democrats are light years away in their backwardness on such matters. They do not realise that things move on.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with Westminster Hall is that, while we are debating there, this Chamber is empty? It is a total waste of public—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are not debating the merits of Westminster Hall.
  Mrs. Browning: You rightly chide my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, there was concern that when we held that important debate, which was of interest to many members of the public as well as to Members of the House, Westminster Hall was full of schoolchildren. There is nothing wrong with children coming to the House of Commons, but many other members of the public would have liked to hear the debate. I am grateful that we have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Letwin: May I return my hon. Friend to the points she was making before that series of interventions? Does she agree that one of the most remarkable features of the scheme is that, because the Minister did not reply to the question she put a few moments ago, we do not have the slightest idea how much of the £400 million that the Treasury hopes to save will instead be spent on the banks. We do not even know whether the sum is greater than £400 million.
  Mrs. Browning: There are many unanswered questions that I shall give the Minister an opportunity to answer. In seven months, they have been repeated several times in several debates. They deserve to be answered. Who will bear the transaction costs of the collection of benefit from the post office when it goes via the clearing bank? The Minister said that it will not be the customer, so it must either be the clearing bank or the post office itself. If that is so, sub-post offices that receive remuneration for that administrative cost will have that remuneration taken

  631
  away from them, with the prospect that they will incur additional charges in carrying out the Government's new policy for post offices.
  During the summer recess, it was obvious that DTI Ministers were putting a lot of pressure on the clearing banks to provide bank accounts for the socially excluded. It sounded nice, but I know from discussions that I have had with the clearing banks that they will not be able to provide bank accounts for the socially excluded and those who, by law, are prohibited from holding bank accounts. If the Minister is to find alternative ways of paying those people, he must take that into account. It would be nice to see a reconciliation sheet showing how the saving of £400 million by the Department of Social Security compares with the additional costs of the various processes that the Government are finding it necessary to cobble together because they did not think things through when the Secretary of State made his policy change decision at the end of May.
  We still have an imprecise picture of how people will access their local post office within a reasonable travelling time. It is obvious that, between now and 2003, post offices will close. I do not wish to stir up unhappiness, but I know that people are already finding it difficult to dispose of post offices. Therefore, there are likely to be far fewer post offices everywhere by 2003.
  The Minister said, in effect, "In that case, we shall look to provide postal services in village halls and people's front rooms." In my constituency, there is a post office in someone's front room, which is open just two half-days a week. Such innovative changes to the sub-post office network are welcome, and obviously one must be creative and flexible, but the Minister knows that the Post Office White Paper makes a very clear commitment to access. What is the likely cost, and who will fund it? Will he answer those questions tonight? Will the Government provide some additional funding for access? If so, should not it appear on the reconciliation sheet?
  I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to answer these questions in terms tonight because—
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will give way as it is the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to conclude my remarks.
  Mr. Hoyle: Why is the Conservative party suddenly showing an interest in rural post offices when, for 18 years, they were allowed to close and not an eyelid was batted?
  Mrs. Browning: I do not know how many meetings the hon. Gentleman has had with sub-postmasters in his constituency—
  Mr. Hoyle: Every day.
  Mrs. Browning: That is part of the great Labour lie rearing its head again tonight. I am saying quite seriously that it is no good for the hon. Gentleman to make such allegations across the Floor of the House without having a substantive reason for doing so.
  632
  I have been a Member of Parliament for seven years. In those seven years, I have held two public meetings with all the sub-postmasters in my constituency, and spent a lot of time corresponding with them. I know that I am not unique; many of my colleagues do the same. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are suddenly starting to take an interest in post offices. We certainly have an interest now as a result of the change of policy by the Minister and the Secretary of State.
  I want to bring the House back to that—
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: As it is a Devon Member, I shall give way, but this really is the last time.
  Mr. Sanders: It is a helpful intervention. Earlier, the hon. Lady mentioned the suburban fringe. Several hon. Members have spoken about the rural post office network. I should like confirmation that she sees this as a problem that affects urban areas to the same extent. By "urban areas" I mean the inner cities, seaside resorts and towns across the country. There is a danger that, in the absence of such a recognition, people will think, "It is just the rural communities again, harping on about the problems," when in fact it is a matter that should unite rural and urban areas.
  Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my opening remarks, I mentioned the urban fringe. In the summer recess, when I visited many colleagues' constituencies, I made a point of visiting many post offices in the urban fringe. I recall visiting one in Poole, in Dorset, with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). Although that post office was well away from the town centre, it obviously served a very large community, many of whom were very elderly, and many of whom were so frail that they could not have taken a bus ride. I am sure that the whole House recognises the importance of such post offices.
  Mr. Bercow: Would my hon. Friend allow me?
  Mrs. Browning: I must make some progress; I hope that my hon. Friend will understand. With him, I visited a post office in his constituency, and he knows that it was a really excellent small village shop. The people who run it are very worried about their future—not just the post office but the shop is under threat. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is not funny if one lives in that village.
  I want to remind the House of the statement that the Secretary of State made on the Post Office in July. He said:
  "Today's announcement is good news for the Post Office and all those whose livelihoods depend on it, because it can now build for the future with real confidence … The White Paper brings an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the Post Office over the last decade: uncertainty over its role and place in society; uncertainty over its long-term viability and ownership … and uncertainty over the Post Office network."—[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1175.]
  Seven months later, there has never been more uncertainty about the future of the Post Office network than there is today. That is a direct result of the Government's change of policy, their dithering and their failure to look for

  633
  alternative viable policies before announcing a policy change. All that is down to the Government. This is the fourth debate that I have attended on this subject. It is about time that the Minister gave us some clear answers and ended the uncertainty.
  8.36 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said at the beginning of his contribution, although concern has been expressed on both sides of the House, greater public concern about the future of the 18,000 post offices has been expressed outside the House. In my area, that concern has been fuelled by the Western Daily Press campaign. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) pointed out, that campaign has at times verged on scaremongering, frightening people into believing that they will lose their rural post offices within the next week.
  Post offices provide a crucial service in rural areas and, as small businesses, they are vulnerable. Their number has been dwindling. The decline has already been noted to be about 1 per cent. a year over the past 20 years and that is principally due to the Tories' indecision, the Tories' neglect, the threats of privatisation and the Tories' cuts in the opening hours of rural post offices. They explain the majority of closures in those 20 years. We have now reached the stage that, if the rate of closure that went on in the Tory years in rural Gloucestershire continued, we would be left with no rural post offices by 2010.
  Like many hon. Members, I have had a meeting with rural sub-postmasters. Many of the points that I wish to make echo their concerns and their fears as to what might happen to them come 2003. However, as well as their concerns, they voiced what they consider to be the opportunities and the challenges that they can meet.
  In rural areas, the post office is often linked most successfully with the village shop. It is often the only centre in the rural community. In April 1998, the Government introduced a very worthwhile rebate of 50 per cent. on the council tax for a shop in a rural parish with fewer than 3,000 people if it is the only shop. That was a good move to support rural post offices. They also added in that measure the ability for a discretionary extra 50 per cent. rebate and Forest of Dean district council has offered that in response to moves from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters.
  Such extra support is very welcome in rural areas, but that local authority, which has supported post offices in the long term, has recently sent letters to people who pay their council tax over the post office counter to suggest that they might like to pay by direct debit. It says that that will be cheaper. It may be; in the short term there will be savings for the local authority. However, the change could cause long-term damage to the Post Office. If the local authority is to support rural post offices, it would have been helpful if, as well as telling those who pay at the post office that they could switch to direct debit, it had sent letters asking those who pay by direct debit whether they knew that they could pay their council tax over the post office counter.
  Post offices need to have the opportunity to develop more services. For example, they could become the centre in rural areas for rural banking and for finance, insurance and many other services. They need to be multi-service
  634
  centres and the Government want to develop them. In their performance and innovation unit report on the rural economy, which was published in December 1999, they said that they wanted centres of information technology, business links and a variety of other financial services to come together in one place.
  The only problem that I have with the report is that there is no mention of the existing Post Office network and the financial services that are already provided, and the fact that there is a network in rural areas that could be built upon. I hope that the rural White Paper will take on board the other innovation in the performance and innovation unit report about the work of the Post Office and use the Post Office network as the basis for the multi-service centre that we want to develop to help rural economies.
  I shall give the House a good example that I mentioned in the Westminster Hall debate last Wednesday, which bears repeating. Ruardean Woodside, a small village in the Forest of Dean, became one of the first of eight pilots set up in April 1999 to become an internet centre for that rural area. The hardware was provided by a grant from Gloucestershire rural community council. The kit is linked to Glosnet. People can come in and use the worldwide web and the internet. There are printers and people can send e-mail, print or fax to a range of services. It is free except for the telephone charge. It is a wonderful model of how the post office can be a centre of telecottaging activity. It stops rural isolation and helps to fight against information poverty in rural areas, to which the Government are committed.
  The post office should be linked more to the local authority as a one-stop shop, where the information and the services provided by local authorities can be in the same premises. The post office is already the first point of information for many people on many issues, especially on social security and on grants that are available from local government.
  Post offices have a real social function. Those who work in them know better than anybody else who is being fraudulent. They recognise the faces of those who come through the door. They will know when strangers come in and they will challenge them if they know that they are trying to cash a benefit cheque.
  I know of two rural postmasters who will help families that are a bit chaotic and perhaps do not claim their child benefit. In one instance in Little Dean, the postmaster will go to the household, knock on the door and say to the family, "Do you know that you have four weeks' of child benefit owing to you?" He will do so to help the family out. That is a real social function.
  Post office staff keep an eye on pensioners. They know when someone has not come in on a Thursday morning to collect his or her pension. They alert other people or they knock on the person's door to see whether he or she is all right. That is a social service that should formally be recognised and even reflected in the core payment that is given to sub-postmasters.
  The Post Office network in our rural areas carries out at least 160 different services, one of which is to arrange holiday insurance, should that be wanted. Post offices used to be able to offer five different categories of insurance, including personal accident and household and earnings protection. However, the Tories stamped that out. I think that the Government should be considering reintroducing a

  635
  wider range of insurance services, especially in rural areas. Why not give post offices the facility to sell quantum cards for gas, electricity and water bills?
  In the Forest of Dean there is poor public transport. It is being improved as a result of the Government's money for rural transport, but it is still poor. Poor people have to spend money to go to the neighbouring town to get and fill up their quantum cards. Surely it would assist people to pay promptly if quantum cards were available in post offices, particularly when we have the horizon project fully on board to help them with this facility. With smart card technology, it would be easy to accomplish.
  Similarly, the post office could be used to enable people to renew their driving licence, vehicle licensing and passports. Why cannot people get a new passport form from their local rural sub-post office? During last year, when there were problems with the Passport Agency, customers were told to go to their local post offices to have their current passport extended, and thousands did so. People want to use this local facility, and it makes sense. There will then be a package provided by the post office. The passport form, the E111, travel insurance and foreign currency could all come from the local service centre, the Post Office network. Banks and travel agents can issue new passport forms, so why cannot rural sub-post offices?
  I mentioned that one can get foreign currency from one's local post office. Not many people are aware of that. That is the problem with the services that post offices offer.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend and close neighbour agree that one of the fundamental problems is that sub-postmasters must sign an agreement that ties their hands and prevents them from marketing? That is certainly true of banking facilities. The agreement is so daft that they are not even allowed to put up signs in their windows to tell customers that they can cash a cheque. That must be changed.
  Mrs. Organ: My hon. Friend is right; sub-postmasters do not have the time to market or advertise, they are not allowed to, and certainly do not have the resources to finance it. The Post Office and the Government need to invest in a national advertising campaign to make people aware of all the facilities available. It is difficult when there is a queue on a Thursday morning for rural sub-postmasters to tell each person at the counter, "We do this; we offer that service." They do not have the time and people do not want to hear of such services in that way. There must be a national advertising campaign.
  Finally, I shall address the thorny problem that a third of Post Office business comprises benefit payments. Many people are concerned about the changes that will come into effect in 2003. I have had assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security and my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness, in letters and in the debate in Westminster Hall last Wednesday, that there will be the choice of having benefits paid in cash over the counter. That will be warmly received, but what exactly does it mean? What is meant by "cash"?
  Will there be the same counterfoil system as at present, or will payments be made by cheque, which must be cashed? Not everybody can get or wants a bank account.
  636
  Poor pensioners do not want one and would not be able to get one, since banks would not want them as customers. An 85-year-old would find it very confusing suddenly to have to run a bank account. Such customers just want their benefits paid to them through a counterfoil system and to receive cash in their hands.
  The Post Office needs effectively to become the rural banking network, which could be a benefit of the Horizon project. Several banks—the Co-operative, Lloyds, Girobank and Barclays—have already signed up to links with the Post Office. To enhance the Post Office's service provision, it is important that people use the Post Office for such banking facilities. The Post Office should become virtually a bank in its own right.
  We need to identify what we can develop in the Post Office and what it can offer in future. I am not sure that there is a clear strategy for rural sub-post offices. They need help in informing people of what is available and what can be received in future. Our local post offices must provide a wide range of services. We must build up insurance, banking and financial services and link post offices, through the computerised programme, to other information services, such as that in Ruardean Woodside, making them part of a multi-service centre, with Business Links and local authority one-stop shops, so that they can truly remain at the heart of service provision in the countryside and help our rural economies.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words.
  I genuinely believe that Labour Members sincerely wish to see the preservation and prosperity of the Post Office network, but I think that that is about as far as it goes. Before going any further, I should confess—perhaps confess is the wrong word—that I am one of those Members who has borne responsibility for overseeing the work of the Post Office. I was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. I can admit now that I fought and lost some of the battles with the Treasury, although I am glad to say that some I won. Today, we have had a clear indication that the DTI team, personified by the Minister for Competitiveness, has lost the battle to the Treasury.
  Leaving aside all the bluster and rhetoric, I have sympathy with the Minister. He is having to play a very poor hand of cards that the Treasury has dealt him.
  I am committed to the modernisation of Post Office services and to the introduction of new technology to facilitate the changes, such as Horizon and ACTs, provided that both sides of the equation are in place. We have heard tonight that the second part of that equation— how those changes will be delivered—is not there.
  However, three positive things have come out of the debate. First, it is good that we have had an opportunity further to discuss this matter. I have a strange feeling that we will discuss it and discuss it until eventually the Government accept that they must do something about it. They cannot allow the Minister to stonewall time after time.
  Secondly, there is a benefit to the Minister, because all he need do is read into the record the speeches that he has given several times already. I have a feeling that he will be asked to come back to the House and to keep giving a

  637
  repeat performance until he is allowed to say what will happen to solve that part of the equation. I hope that when he winds up the debate he will have a go at the motion, and, I hope, erode the beautiful friendship between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats that has existed for a number of years.
  Thirdly, and more importantly, as many hon. Members have said, the motion refers to the impact that automated credit transfer will have on a large number of people. If each Parliament had to design its own coat of arms with a motto underneath, the Government would have in their design a large pencil eraser with the motto—in Latin, of course, to ensure that it is not easily understood—that in English would be, "It seemed a good idea at the time." If I had to characterise the Government's actions, I would say that to them it seemed a good idea at the time but they did not work out its long-term effect. This proposal is a classic case of, "It seemed a good idea at the time."
  This measure is attractive to the Government, especially to the Treasury. We have heard that £400 million will be saved, and that is a lot of money. As has been shown time and again, there has been little recognition of the effect of the proposal on a substantial number of people who will have to use this system. The Minister is a nice chap, but nothing he has said so far reassures me that the second half of the equation is even half way towards being in place.
  Mr. Letwin: I hope that my hon. Friend is not subscribing to the thesis that the net saving will be £400 million, given that we have not the slightest clue what it will be. We know only that the gross saving will be £400 million. A huge amount of unspecified money is to be paid to the banks.
  Mr. Page: I ask my hon. Friend to hold his horses. As night follows day, my views will gradually unfold. Given the time, I may have to truncate my speech, but I shall touch on my hon. Friend's perfectly valid and genuine point.
  It goes without saying—the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) started to make this point—that many of the people who collect their benefits from a sub-post office are among the most vulnerable—people who are old, frail and do not use information technology. For the Government to make this announcement without fully thinking through the consequences is exceedingly worrying for those people. It is difficult to understand how a Government can try to push a legitimate cost of looking after those vulnerable people on to financial institutions without clearing it with them first.
  Would it not have been better to have joined-up Government—to use their oft repeated phrase? There could have been a statement by the Government and those financial institutions explaining how the system will work.
  My sympathies are with the banks, because undoubtedly a number of people receiving benefit will not want or will not be able to handle this extra dimension. Automatic transfers of this kind will be welcome to Members of the House, but for a percentage of our people they will be worrying, frightening and confusing.
  We all know constituents who fall into the category to which I refer. Technology may be pushing us towards a cashless society, but there is a generation to which that
  638
  will never apply. I look the Minister in the eye when I say that that generation will never be able to handle it— and it is composed of the old, the frail and the vulnerable. I welcome that part of the motion, and hope that it will increase pressure on the Government to announce the second part of the equation to which I have referred.
  The debate, however, extends beyond postal services. If we exclude them from what we have been discussing today, we see that they constitute only a small part of the activity of sub-post offices. What we are really considering is the possibility—indeed, the probability— that we shall create areas of potential deprivation. Deprivation is not exclusively financial, of course. I am talking about maintaining communities and services— especially in rural areas, although the same applies to constituencies on the urban fringe. The removal of such services will be the straw that breaks the back of local shops and forces them into redundancies and closure, thus hastening the death of small communities.
  What will the individuals affected do? It will mean a long drive—or a bus journey, at a cost—to some larger population centre to obtain the necessities of life. To people who have lost their village store, this will become a form of social exclusion. Moreover, the Government's announcement that they will save themselves £400 million—this brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)— may well relate just to the gross figure. The Government may ultimately have to find more than that to prop up the communities that they have gone some way towards destroying.
  I think that the Minister is receiving a clear message from the debate. The thousands of people who run, and work in, sub-post offices throughout the country need answers to specific questions. They want to know how the new Horizon project will affect them if 30 per cent. of their income disappears when automatic credit transfer is introduced in 2003. There are 8,000 sub-post offices in rural areas that will have to face the challenge, and several thousand more in suburban areas. It is not enough to say that they will be able to diversify—that, for instance, they can become lottery agents, if they are not lottery agents already; there is plenty of competition there. How they will survive is the great unanswered question.
  I am even less convinced that the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit will come up with convincing answers when it reports next month. Let us hope that it will, but I think all Members know that post offices and sub-post offices make a vital contribution to the vitality of their communities. We do not need the spin doctors of Whitehall who tell us what we already know, and what has been repeatedly acknowledged today.
  According to what the Minister for Competitiveness told the House on 12 January, the study would reflect on how the post office network could best contribute to the Government's objectives for the future,
  "and, in the process, … formulate objectives for the network itself."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 67WH.]
  We immediately find ourselves involved in an argument, however. On the one hand, Ministers are saying that they will not become involved in the day-to-day running of the system; on the other hand, they are establishing a basic strategy and primary objectives for any organisation, which means that they must be involved in how that day-to-day running takes place.

  639
  Like the Liberal Democrats, the Government want to have their cake and it. They favour automation, but they do not favour having to pick up the costs. I think that they are avoiding a good many hard choices, and I can tell the Minister that the issue will return time and again.
  9 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be called in what is our second debate within a week on this important matter. Without seeking to graduate in sycophancy, may I say that I am increasingly reassured by the replies of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness? I wonder whether I might mention again his renowned quotation. He said it first, I think, in Westminster Hall:
  "I emphasise again that there will be no change before 2003 to existing methods of benefit payments. All benefit recipients and state pensioners who want to will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash, across the counter at the post office, both before and after the changeover."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 69WH.]
  That is a fairly convincing reply. I wavered a little when the Minister went on to say today—after he made that statement for, I think, the third time—that we would not take active measures to move customers to automated credit transfer before 2003. I am sure that he will be able to reassure hon. Members exactly what those measures might be.
  If I understand the position correctly, one of the main concerns of all right hon. and hon. Members' constituents is that they will not be able to receive cash payments. That view has been expressed widely and caused much concern, particularly among elderly people, who believe that the process is in train already. The Minister was able to reassure me in Westminster Hall last week that the somewhat misleading letter on child benefit payments that was issued by the Benefits Agency had been withdrawn. I hope that further letters or statements that give the impression that there is no choice, even though there is, will cease to be issued, and that cash payment will continue to be an option. If we can resolve the cash question, that will be of great benefit to those who do not want, or cannot have, a bank account.
  The second concern involves the profit margin and whether businesses can survive if a certain amount of their business goes because of direct payment, even if some of it remains via cash payment. I suspect that most of us know that village post offices are not gold mines where vast profits are made daily. People there work long hours, often in difficult circumstances—in many cases, I suspect, for quite low margins of profit. Therefore, two things need to go hand in hand; I was hoping that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) would mention them when he talked about two stages.
  Two stages need to be in harness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) eloquently mentioned, other business has to come in at the same pace as the cash-payment system declines. If that equation can be achieved, there will be a positive future for rural, suburban and inner-city post offices. Again, I am reassured—I hope that I am not over-reassured—by the Minister for Competitiveness, who indicated the
  640
  Government's commitment to negotiate arrangements with the major clearing banks, so that sub-post offices become their agents.
  Mr. Page: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not accept how worrying it is for old people when the Government announce just one part and hope—I hope that I am wrong and that what they say will happen does happen—that the second part will follow in one, two or three years' time?
  Mr. Hurst: I fully accept that there is concern. That was the reason why, in the earlier debate, I mentioned— I say it again today—that all of us have a duty to reassure our constituents in a loud and clear voice that the cash payment option will remain and that steps are being taken to reinvigorate local post services. Fear must not strangle the very businesses that we seek to save.
  I will not go through the position again. We are fully aware that the post office is a crucial part of each village, suburban and inner-city community: in many cases, if the post office goes away, there will be not social exclusion but a social desert. There will be nowhere for the interchange of ideas among people because all the places for such an interchange will have gone: the pub, school, church, chapel, shop and, finally, post office.
  I know that it is not the Government's intention for such social deserts to be created, and I am encouraged by Ministers' recent statements. All of us want the concept of community to survive, and believe that the post office is at the heart of the community. Again, however, I implore the Minister to ensure that the introduction of banking business and other services at post offices proceeds at the same pace as the decline of cash payments.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Brian Cotter: Earlier in the debate, hon. Members made the point that sub-post offices are very important to local areas. Specifically, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ)—who is about to leave the Chamber—made various points on the issue with which I shall deal shortly.
  In a very real sense, the post office is the centre of the community. However, the Government's White Paper on post offices states:
  "The sub-post office plays a valuable role in local communities, particularly for the less mobile. But the Post Office cannot sustain a network if it is not sufficiently well used, and nor can Government."
  Those are worrying words indeed. If there is not sufficient support for post offices, they will be at risk; indeed, in the White Paper, it is acknowledged that they are at risk. The implication of the statement is that the Government will not support sub-post offices if they are not attracting sufficient turnover. We should remember, however, the relation between the issues of benefit payment methods and possible declines in the numbers of those who use post offices.
  The hon. Member for Forest of Dean made various good points—which I shall not of course, repeat—and tried to draw attention to various ways in which sub-post offices might use their position to benefit communities. She also mentioned a national advertising campaign— which is a very good idea—as a means of achieving that goal. However, as I recently told the Minister in a

  641
  Westminster Hall debate, in view of the grave confusion caused by the letter sent to benefits users, post offices should display a notice clearly stating, "You can still get your benefits here." Although I think there should be a national advertising campaign, as the hon. Lady suggested, a statement of available services should also be clearly displayed in post offices.
  The Government should acknowledge their commitment to small businesses. The fact is that 90 per cent. of the sub-post office network is managed by small business people. Moreover, a recent report stated that 90 per cent. of small businesses with fewer than nine employees use sub-post offices for their banking and deposit facilities. Ministers therefore have a neat link available between establishing their commitment to small businesses and addressing the issues affecting sub-post offices.
  Hon. Members have already mentioned our grave concerns for those who have decided to run sub-post offices. The Minister said that small business people had invested about £1 billion of their own money in sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters and mistresses will feel very let down in that investment, as they decided on it based on volumes of business currently being done by the post office, much of which involved benefits payments. The Government have therefore misled those who were deciding whether to take on a sub-post office about the basic business, which is now at risk.
  The Minister said that the £1 billion was for an attractive investment. Sub-postmasters and mistresses clearly no longer feel that it was an attractive investment. I am sure that they have told other hon. Members that they are desperately worried that they will not get a return on their investment and will not be able to retire on a decent income. They feel let down.
  That is one reason why the debate keeps recurring. It is not just because the Liberal Democrats decided to raise the subject again. Even after the debate last week, which I participated in, people are still looking for the answers. I have a great deal of time for the Minister. It has been said that he has a great struggle with the Treasury. I am sure that he is doing his best, but we want to reinforce to him what is being said about sub-post offices. The Treasury must come up with something more than the various ideas mentioned by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, which I support.
  We had a fiasco and great delays with passports recently. Sub-post offices could play a key role. With electronic communications, it should be possible to make an application at the local post office and have it near enough issued by the sub-postmaster. Photographs and forms can be transmitted electronically and it should be possible to get a passport within two or three days.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a letter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary placed in the Library last week in response to a question that I asked. He made it clear that the Government intend to look at the possibility of increasing facilities for passport and similar applications that are the responsibility of the Home Office.
  Mr. Cotter: That is welcome, but there is a grave concern that there will not be many sub-post offices left when the reforms are introduced.
  642
  The Minister said that the Horizon project would be implemented by spring 2001. That is fine. I am glad to hear him repeating that commitment this evening. However, sub-postmasters have told me that they are not in the least impressed with the training on the computer system. That is an area of great concern and I should like the Minister to respond to it. It is all very well installing good equipment, but people who are not well acquainted with computer systems need good training.
  Mr. Miller: I have followed the Horizon project in detail under the previous Administration and under this Government because of my interest in technology. There is a programme of training that involves all 19,000 sub-post office staff. At my most recent visit to ICL's Feltham operation, where Horizon is being developed, I was told that sub-postmasters, from those aged 16 to those in their 80s, had already been trained and that the target was to hit every potential sub-postmaster.
  Mr. Cotter: That is very good. It is easy to say that training has been carried out, but I am questioning the quality of the training and whether it addresses what people need to know.
  We are holding this debate because the Government have been reactive rather than proactive. The PIU's consideration of socially desirable objectives was referred to earlier. The Post Office White Paper could have addressed many of the issues. However, as a result of concerns that have arisen since then, the PIU has been set up. We look forward to what it will say. However, the Government seem to react too late, and to do so when people have decided not to use the post office to collect their benefits.
  The Minister talked about access criteria. It is all very well to have criteria, but people may not be ready and willing to run sub-post offices because of concerns about profitability. When a sub-post office is closed now, it is difficult to find another site, as well as finding someone willing to run it. Postmasters and postmistresses are extremely concerned now—let alone in two or three years' time when it may be difficult to find staff to run sub-post offices.
  I have received more letters on the issue since last week's debate. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has stayed to answer the debate, and I very much hope that he will come up with something more tangible than his initial response.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Clearly, all parties are concerned about the future of sub-post offices in urban and rural areas. However, I take issue with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who said that everything was rosy during the 18 years of Tory Government—that was far from being the case. Let us have the facts. Some 40 post offices a week have closed over the past 20 years. There was no great debate then in this House, saying that something must be done about that haemorrhaging of rural post offices. Nothing actually happened. It is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to come to this House shedding crocodile tears about the future of the Post Office. If we believe in the future of rural post offices, we must address what went wrong before.
  Part of the problem has been the modern culture of banking. Pensioners have their pensions paid automatically into their bank accounts, and people on

  643
  child benefit have had it paid into their bank accounts. That has reduced the number of post office users, and rural post offices have suffered in particular. We ought to discuss how we can save the Post Office and reopen rural post offices.
  I visit my local post offices. I was lucky enough to reopen the Chapel Lane post office in Coppull, and I have been in contact with Mrs. Foster at Wheelton post office in Chorley and Mrs. Friend at Hoghton post office, and with all the users. The belief that only Conservative Members care about post offices, after 18 years of not caring, will not wash with me.
  All parties share the belief that something must be done. I have belief in the Minister, and I hope that others will. I know that the Government take the future seriously. The rural community is important to the Government, and we must ensure that the vitality of villages continues through their post offices. We ought to be embracing new technology in rural areas, as that is where the future will be. We ought to have that new technology, and bolt on additional services. It is all very well people saying that rural post offices can have a bit of this and a bit of that. They need to be able to offer full financial packages, lottery tickets, passports, tax discs and a whole range of services.
  People who work hard in rural post offices and are the backbone of their community will then be rewarded financially and, crucially, will be able to sell on the business. People have been very worried about the future and have rightly questioned their Members of Parliament. I welcome that questioning and the support that we can offer. We have to tell people that we take their concerns seriously and will try to ensure that they have a bright future in which they can sell on the business when they retire.
  If we do that, further post offices might reopen. There is no doubt that there was a haemorrhage, and the number of villages without a post office is significant. Thankfully, 60 per cent. of villages have a post office, although only 5 per cent. have a bank. We should consider how to encourage more post offices to open. We must ensure that we have a practical rural banking system throughout the United Kingdom.
  We have a Minister who is confident that he can deliver a rural bank and ensure that those who are currently excluded from banking services are welcomed, with the promise that people will still be able to draw cash if they wish to. We must tackle social exclusion. To open an account in a high street bank in Chorley, people have to produce either a passport or a driving licence. That rules out a lot of people. We must give people the benefits of having a bank account: those services must embrace those in the rural community so that the farmer who collects money for his milk can pay it in at the local post office.
  The rural banking service in the post office will be a high-tech service. We must watch out for luddism and embrace the new technology.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the decision to put computers into post offices was a Conservative policy which the current Government inherited. Nobody is saying that technology
  644
  is not important, but it is no good giving post offices technology, with all that it affords them, while chopping 30 per cent. off their revenue with another policy.
  Mr. Hoyle: It is interesting how the Conservatives wave the flag on the last couple of years of their Government. That commitment was not delivered; it was something that they were only beginning to embrace. They are saying that, after 16 years of doing nothing, they should be congratulated on two years of being bothered about rural post offices. We will not allow them to rewrite history in that way.
  The Government are trying to sort out the previous Government's mistakes and to ensure that we put in the right technology. We have the right Minister to do it. We should welcome the fact that the Government have assured the future of our rural and urban post offices.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I have heard some rewriting of history, but the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) takes the biscuit. I listened with interest to his speech.
  The Minister drew attention to the number of times we have discussed the Post Office since July, with a full day's debate inspired by the official Opposition, a half-day debate inspired by the Liberal Democrats and a debate last week in Westminster Hall. I once had responsibility for the Post Office. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and I have been trying to recall the number of times that we discussed the Post Office—there was certainly a major debate on it when we presented our Green Paper—but I cannot recall a time when we had to hold a debate because of the closure and the threat of closure of sub-post offices. If such threats had existed, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats would have shouted the need for debates from the rooftops. The very fact that such debates were not requested is evidence of how carefully we considered the future of the rural post office network, so I will take no lectures from the Government today.
  I accept the Minister's commitment to the Post Office and I readily acknowledge that he has a record unmatched by previous Post Office Ministers. However, I wish to raise several points that I hope he will address when he winds up. Today's debate is not about the Post Office and the delivery of letters: it is about the sub-post office network and 18,000 privately operated businesses. Those businesses provide a vital lifeline, especially in rural areas. There is no doubt that the post office remains the most attractive element in the village retail structure. It is invariably located with integrated village shops. Rural community sub-post offices provide essential services for those confined to the village for whatever reason. The sub-post office is a critical element of village shop owners' financial plans.
  In my constituency, West Derbyshire, which covers a huge rural area, I am concerned about how many closures have taken place in the past few years. For example, post offices have closed in Cubley, Longford, Roston, Flagg, Lea Bridge, Knifton, Quarndon, Fenny Bentley, Clifton and Taddington. That is a massive escalation of closures. Of course closures take place over time when someone has run a post office for a long time and wishes to retire, and it is always very difficult for them to find someone

  645
  else to take the post office on. However, I believe that Post Office Counters is partly responsible for that situation.
  I was so concerned about the future of the sub-post office network that I did a survey of all the post offices in my constituency last year. I thought that Cubley post office was still open—until I received a letter back from Mrs. Wilton of 4 Long Meadow, Cubley, who closed the post office. She said:
  "I did manage to find another person in the village keen to take on the running of the P.O. in her home. She was informed by Post Office Counters that she would have to install an alarm, she would be responsible for insuring the equipment and would have to pay the running costs estimated at £22 per month, this out of a gross salary of £135 per month. Obviously her enthusiasm evaporated!
  My personal view, and I stress personal, is that P.O.C.L. say they do not close Post Offices but are more than happy to have it done for them."
  A further issue arises from the contract that people are required to sign before they take on a post office. A new sub-post office could have opened in Idridgehay, when some new people took over the village shop in which the post office used to be located. However, they found the requirements to which they had to sign up too burdensome. On top of the money that would have to be spent on decorating the outside of the shop in the corporate colours, as the Post Office insists on, the last sentence of the contract they were sent caused them great concern:
  "At the time of your resignation your successor will be appointed at your premises"—
  let us remember that people run these businesses in their own homes—
  "unless the Regional Manager has stated that he wishes to close or reinstate the office on vacancy or no acceptable candidate can be found to take over the appointment in your existing premises".
  Village post offices are often run from home. Who is likely to sign a contract that allows the Post Office to put someone else in a person's home to run the local service?
  Rightly or wrongly, many people in rural areas believe that the network of village post offices is under threat. The evidence in my constituency leads me to agree. That threat is not in the interests of the Government or the country, so I hope that the Minister will encourage a new approach from Post Office Counters. For example, why are carriers in competition with Parcelforce not allowed to operate through the post office system? Why do not the Government open up the services provided by village post offices?
  The Minister has a golden opportunity to make the progress that many hon. Members have attempted over a number of years. I hope that he will take it, and secure the future of our vital village post office network. If he manages to help that network, he will ensure the survival of offices in the other, urban areas mentioned by other hon. Members in this debate.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I make no apology for holding yet another debate on the Post Office. The network of sub-post offices, and the services that can be accessed through them, are vital to our rural and urban communities. We have had to return to the subject because so many
  646
  questions were left unanswered. I hope that they will be answered tonight: if they are not, I predict that there will be further debates on the subject until they are answered.
  The Minister has temporarily gone from his place, after being present for the whole debate. Excellent though he is, the Minister is working overtime, thanks to a shortage of other Ministers to deal with this matter.
  Mr. Page: When the news is good, the Secretary of State is present: when the news is bad, someone else is.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience.
  Mr. Baker: My short experience in the House leads me to believe that what the hon. Gentleman says is true.
  We have heard that Britain still has more than 18,000 post offices, despite the closures that have taken place at an alarming rate over the past 20 years. Those offices serve 28 million people every week.
  Under the Conservative Government, 4,000 sub-post offices closed. That decline has continued under Labour. Offices close every week, yet we know how important they are to rural communities and to estates in urban areas. Often they are the only community services left when the school, the pub and the other shops are long gone.
  We also heard how important benefit payments are to postal business. The Post Office expressed its concern about the Government's policy trend in a press release issued on 8 July 1999:
  "The DSS's decision to pay benefits by Automated Credit Transfer from 2003 … would seriously threaten the income streams of many post offices, especially in rural areas."
  That is the fact of the matter. It is why so many hon. Members are worried that the Government's plans will undermine the economics of the post office system, and lead to closures.
  The share of income for post offices deriving from the payment of benefits averages between 30 and 40 per cent., but it can be as high as 70 per cent. in some offices.
  In my constituency of Lewes, more than 40 per cent. of the income of eight out of the 34 post offices derives from the payment of benefits. In the Secretary of State's constituency of Tyneside, North, where there are 22 post offices, 16–73 per cent. of them—depend on benefit payments for more than 40 per cent. their income. In the Prime Minister's constituency, 72 per cent. of post offices are so dependent. Interestingly, in Edinburgh, Central, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Social Security, only 5 per cent. of post offices are in danger of closing down, which is fortunate.
  The Minister talked about an unhealthy reliance on benefits. In one sense, I can understand that—it does not do to put all one's eggs in one basket. Nevertheless the word "unhealthy" suggests that the Minister believes that dependence on benefits should be reduced, but is not yet clear what will replace it. That point concerns many Liberal Democrat colleagues and, I believe, hon. Members across the House. It seems that benefits will be taken away—that much is clear—but what will replace them is not at all clear.
  How great is the Government's commitment to the network? What is their commitment to the vital lifeline that rural post offices in particular provide? The Minister

  647
  talked about access criteria, but it is not clear how they will link with the financial performance of a post office. If a post office is vital for a community because the nearest one to it is a long way away, will it survive because it performs an important function for the local community, no matter how unsuccessful it is financially? Or will it have to close because it is not financially viable, even though people will be inconvenienced? We need to understand the relationship between the social factors and the economic performance of each post office.
  I have doubts about the appeals procedure, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me when he winds up the debate. The new appeals procedure sounds like a good idea, but it is not clear how it will deal with even the present volume of sub-post offices that are closing, never mind an increased volume if things go awry. Nor is it clear whether it will be based on simply financial criteria. If so, what is the point of an appeal? It will just be argued that the figures do not stack up and that the post office must shut.
  We need to have clear and rigorous social guidelines in place that can overrule the financial performance of each unit. Post offices will be doing the best they can under the circumstances—it may not make financial sense, but it will make social sense. The Minister will have to clarify that point if we are to have confidence in the appeals procedure.
  The Minister said that people must use their post office or lose it—we have heard that phrase many times. But what about those who have to use it because there is no alternative, but who still might lose it because it is not making money? Where do those people go when their sub-post offices close? The Minister said that there can be no guarantee that no post office will shut. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) spoke about people's individual circumstances and the difficulty of replacing postmasters. Of course that is true. But we want the Government's guarantee that except for those personal circumstances, they will maintain the network at or at about its present size. I have not heard the Minister give that guarantee—I hope that he will tonight. If not, what is the minimum size of the network that he is prepared to tolerate? It is currently 18,000—how low will it have to go before he says that it has gone too far?
  The Minister mentioned that there is a small window of opportunity. The hon. Gentleman told us again tonight that automation will take place by spring 2001. We are pleased that the Government are pushing forward with automation. We know that ACT kicks in in 2003. That is not a very long time in which, to use the Minister's words, to grow new business. What happens if post offices do not grow new business in that two-year period?
  The Minister praised the contribution of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who was not called to speak in the debate tonight but who secured the debate last week in Westminster Hall. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "it would be good to hear that, even with the introduction of ACT, the timetable of 2003 to 2005 is flexible".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 49WH.]
  The Minister should respond to that sound point. A question remains over the consequences of a mass take-up of use of the internet or new digital facilities. Will automation render the sub-post offices out of date? The key question remains: how far will the financial performance of each unit outweigh social factors?
  648
  Considerable doubts remain about franchise arrangements in urban areas. Post Office Counters seems determined to leave perfectly good offices so that it can enter into franchise arrangements with retailers. However, in Newhaven, Post Office Counters left a perfectly good and serviceable Crown office—near the sorting office, which was in the same building—to move in with a retailer that soon went bankrupt. At three days' notice, the post office had to move into a portable cabin in a car park, which the disabled find it difficult to use. Meanwhile, the original Crown office lies empty. That kind of mess results when Post Office Counters refuses to go it alone when necessary, preferring to reach franchise agreements with partners that often seem fairly dubious.
  In Lewes, the franchise post office does nearly as much business as the Crown post office—about two thirds or three quarters as much. The franchise post office has been given notice by W. H. Smith, and will close in three months' time. The Crown office is at the top of a hill, which is impossible to reach for the elderly and disabled. No alternative arrangement has been made. Post Office Counters does us no favours by reaching such franchise agreements. Why do the agreements include such short notice periods? Why should people's lives be disrupted without notice because of those agreements? We need confidence that Post Office Counters is as keen to maintain the network as Members of Parliament are.
  Questions remain about cash transactions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked how much they will cost, and who will pay. Will the banks suffer a loss? Will the Post Office? Will the Treasury suffer a loss, or the Department of Social Security?
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will agree that banks tend not to suffer losses. I fear that if banks are not properly reimbursed, they will pass on the costs to their customers, which would be totally unacceptable.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady makes a valid point.
  The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), who is no longer here—
  Mrs. Organ: I am.
  Mr. Baker: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. She asked what cash is. That seems a simple question, but does cash include cheques? All sorts of fears surround that point. Many people do not want a bank account and want no truck with the banking system. They want to hand over a book and receive cash in return. Successive Governments have ensured that child benefit is paid in cash to women for the very good reason that it ensures that children are properly supported. We must now allow such money to be sucked into paying off overdrafts on bank accounts, or to go into joint bank accounts held with unsuitable husbands.
  On 23 October 1999, a form was issued relating to child benefit. It lists the ways in which child benefit may be paid. It says that the benefit may be paid straight into a bank or building society account every four weeks, or through the Post Office by payment into a giro account or national savings bank account. The form does not mention cash payments over the counter. Will the Minister write to everyone who has received the form to make them

  649
  aware that they can receive cash over the counter, or will he allow the form to let people believe mistakenly that they cannot receive child benefit in cash?
  The Liberal Democrats favour a fully automated, modernised, competitive, publicly owned Post Office, operating with greater commercial freedom. [Interruption.] There should be no surprise about that; it has been our position for a long time.
  We are in favour of the maintenance of universal service provision, with national uniform tariffs, which especially benefit rural and remote areas. We are in favour of real customer choice, through the retention of alternative payment options for benefits and the postponement of ACT for benefits until we are convinced that such arrangements will guarantee the network in its current state. We are in favour of a proper appeals system, so as to ensure that it is extremely difficult to close post offices. We are in favour of ensuring the survival of the post office network in its present form, with the present number of post offices, for those people—the majority— who want it.
  We have used one of our rare Opposition Days to hold the debate because the matter is so important. We have held four debates on the subject recently, in this place or in Westminster Hall, because it is so important and because of the uncertainty of the Government's response. The Minister has not quelled the many genuine doubts of many Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Members. During the next 15 minutes, it is up to the Minister to answer our questions or be faced with another debate in the not too distant future.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Alan Johnson: With the leave of the House, I shall conclude the debate.
  The debate has been wide ranging and, as in the debate last week, the amount of participation by hon. Members reflects the importance of the matter to them and to their constituents in urban and in rural areas. Hon. Members have raised many specific issues and expressed many concerns, to which I shall respond.
  First, I reiterate the Government's firm commitment to the protection of postal services for all customers now and in the future. Although much the focus of the debate has been on the future of the counters network, its subject extends to other vital facets of the Post Office's operation—the provision of letter and parcel services.
  In my opening speech, I dealt with the balanced package of reforms, set out in the White Paper, to enable the Post Office to meet the major challenges that it faces in a rapidly changing communications market. Key elements to underpin the Post Office's crucial social obligations include the enshrining in law for the first time of the universal service obligation of daily mail deliveries to every postal address in the country and of the uniform domestic letter tariff—a matter of special relevance and importance in rural areas.
  We shall establish a new independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission, to promote and protect customer interests. We shall set a high quality of service standards; regulate prices; promote competition; and strengthen consumer representation through a revamped Post Office Users National Council. We provided additional financial resources to the Post Office for
  650
  investment by reducing the proportion of post-tax earnings to be paid to the Government. We have a commitment to a nationwide network of post offices and to the setting of access criteria, against which the evolution of the network can be closely monitored and under which ways of maintaining reasonable access can be investigated.
  Hon. Members have raised a wide range of issues. I shall respond to as many of them as I can. However, first I admit that the Government make no pretence of being able to answer every question at present. The study of the post office network by the performance and innovation unit at the Cabinet Office was commissioned by the Prime Minister last October. That was before any campaigns by rural newspapers and even before any Adjournment debates had been held on the matter—apart from one honourable exception, initiated by a Liberal Democrat Member. It is expected that the report will be completed in the spring. It will inform our thinking on setting the future objectives, role and contribution of the network and on setting access criteria.
  The performance and innovation unit will closely examine issues related to the migration of benefits to ACT.
  Mrs. Browning: I am sure that the House is delighted that the Prime Minister has taken that personal interest. Can the Minister promise us that, when the report is available, the Prime Minister will stand at the Dispatch Box and present it to the House?
  Mr. Johnson: No, I cannot. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that there will be a debate on the contents of the report.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) tabled a short motion. I can clarify the issues that it raises. It is based on a false premise.
  First, the motion says that changes by the Government
  "will lead to further large scale closures".
  At the start of the debate, I and other hon. Members pointed out that, in whipping up such concern, the Liberal Democrats are devaluing the properties of some sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and creating the very circumstances that all hon. Members are determined to avoid.
  The motion says that ACT
  "will deny freedom of choice".
  It will not. Any benefit recipient who wants to continue to draw their benefit payment in cash across a post office counter before and after the changes will be able to do so.
  The motion asks the Government to postpone ACT
  "until the Post Office has developed its own automated platform".
  The Post Office will have developed its own automated platform by spring 2001. The migration to ACT will not even start until 2003.
  The motion says that, as part of the universal service obligation, we are to
  "require Post Office Counters to maintain a sub-post office network which satisfies broad social and economic as well as narrow financial criteria of viability."
  We have said that we will enshrine access criteria in law for the first time and ensure that an independent regulator and a revamped consumer body have the obligation to

  651
  police them. I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Twickenham and the Liberal Democrats have people's best interests at heart, but we really must be careful about the messages that are sent about the post office network.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about the deal that we inherited from the previous Government. As I have said before, the benefit payment card system proposed by the previous Government was well intentioned. They sought to computerise the network. To draw an analogy with television programmes, I would prefer to talk about "Tomorrow's World" than about "All Our Yesterdays", but that particular private finance initiative was based on the developer also being the financier. Anyone who reads the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will agree that we had no alternative but to pull out of that contract and to set up a new computerisation contract that was capable of being achieved.
  Mr. Bob Laxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Trade and Industry Committee received evidence to the effect that the recouping of the costs of the establishment of the ICL Pathway project—Project Horizon—would probably amount to more than 73p per transaction, for an almost indefinite period? That seemed to me a crazy contract.
  Mr. Johnson: The point is well made.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton raised a point about transaction costs. That is a matter for commercial negotiation between the DSS, the Benefits Agency and the banks, and between the Post Office and the banks, but I believe that she is aware that even the benefit payment card proposed by the previous Government related to an eight-year contract with the Benefits Agency, which ran out in 2005. They made it perfectly clear—I had an interest in the matter at the time—that it was an interim measure on the route to ACT; it was not a for ever solution to the problem.
  The hon. Lady will also know that the cost of girocheques is 79p per payment, the cost of payment for the benefit payment card was 67p per payment, the cost of the order book control system that we are using at the moment—the bar coded system—is 49p and the cost of ACT is 1p. Given that information technology is becoming more ubiquitous, the migration to ACT is bound to continue, no matter which Government are in power.
  By holding this debate yet again, we are at last having a debate about the future of the Post Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said, year after year seeped away with no one showing any particular political interest in the subject.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned lottery tickets, with derision. We are not saying that the increase in lottery payments is a panacea for the problem. We are saying that it is very welcome new work to pass across post office counters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), in a very important speech, drew attention to the crucial fact that we do not advertise the services that are available across post office counters. She mentioned 160 transactions. There are actually 170; and, with
  652
  computerisation, every office in the country will be able to provide every service. At the moment, some offices in rural areas are restricted in the services that they can provide because of the difficulty of training staff in 170 transactions. We need to deal with that issue.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the performance and innovation unit report on rural areas and said that it did not mention the Post Office network. She also made that point last week and I shall write to her about it. The PIU team is offended by her comment. It says that there is a complete chapter on the network in the report, so I shall deal with that point in correspondence. My hon. Friend also raised some excellent ideas on how we could increase traffic across post office counters.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said that I had been dealt a poor hand by the Treasury and that I had to do something about it. He was a member of a Government under whom the Treasury screwed the Post Office for £1 billion over 10 years. They attracted stern criticism from the Tory-dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that that system would stop and that they would introduce a dividend system based on 40 per cent. of pre-tax profits. Three months later, a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer hiked the external financing limit to £1 billion over three years, and the hon. Gentleman tells me that this Government have been dealt a poor hand by the Treasury.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said that we needed to take active measures and he referred to the Benefits Agency letter, as did the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) in his wind-up speech. We are in contact with the Benefits Agency about the letter that was sent to the 370,000 of the 7.5 million child benefit recipients who get their payments weekly. Since 1982, the system has been that child benefits are paid monthly unless someone meets certain criteria. It is a regular procedure for the Benefits Agency to write to the minority who still receive weekly payments to remind them of the criteria. The Department has concerns about the absence of certain words in that letter. The matter has been taken up with the Benefits Agency and, as I have said before, we are working with it in complete partnership to ensure that any misunderstanding caused by the letter is eradicated and so that people understand— I say it again—that they have the right to draw benefits in cash.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) also referred to struggles with the Treasury. I have mentioned the struggles that the previous Government had, and we are having an easy time compared to them. Over the past few months, the Treasury has agreed to the Post Office keeping more of its money. The external financing limited was 50 per cent. last year and it will be 40 per cent. in future years. By putting £480 million of investment into the computerisation of the network, the Treasury has done a great deal to lift the dead hand that has fallen on the Post Office from across the road at the Treasury buildings since at least the time of Rowland Hill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley made a profound point about the erosion of the network over the past few years. I am sorry to surprise and shock the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), but I thought that he made an excellent contribution. It recognised that we have problems with closures now and some of those problems are about the relationship

  653
  between Post Office Counters and sub-postmasters, who must be part of any meaningful review to protect the network. I am sorry to ruin the hon. Gentleman's career, but he also mentioned what I seem to remember was called "reciprocal exclusivity", which is being considered by the PIU.
  This has been an important debate. I acknowledge that we do not yet have detailed answers to all the questions that have been raised, but we are fully alive to them. We are already working on them and will continue to do so in the coming months. As in many facets of national life, the world in which the Post Office and postal services operate is changing rapidly. We will provide the protection for this vital part of the social fabric of this country and we will ensure that post offices are given the resources that they need to survive in very difficult circumstances. I urge the House to support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 298.

  Division No. 28]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

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

  Ballard, Jackie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  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

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Öpik, Lembit

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

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

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tyler, Paul

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Bob Russell and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Best, Harold

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Banks, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Caplin, Ivor

  Berry, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  654

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chaytor, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coaker, Vemon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

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

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dowd, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Etherington, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Love, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonnell, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McNulty, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWalter, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  655

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Southworth, Ms Helen

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

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Norris, Dan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wills, Michael

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 41.

  Division No. 29]

  [10.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  656

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Follett, Barbara

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Best, Harold

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gardiner, Barry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hain, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hill, Keith

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hurst, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drew, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Laxton, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ennis, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  657

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Salter, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Maxton, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moftatt, Laura

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stringer, Graham

  Morley, Elliot

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

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

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Timms, Stephen

  Norris, Dan

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner Dr Desmond (kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner Dr Georae (NW Norfolk)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pendry, Tom

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Tynan, Bill

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter L

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Plaskitt, James

  Wareing, Robert N Watts, David

  Pond, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wills, Michael

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wood, Mike

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rammell, Bill

  Woolas, Phil

  Rapson, Syd

  Worthington, Tony

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Roy, Frank

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Breed, Colin

  Baker, Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burnett, John Cable, Dr Vincent

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Brake, Tom

  Chidgey, David

  658

  Cotter, Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moore, Michael

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Oaten, Mark

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Öpik, Lembit

  George,Andrew (St Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Sanders, Adrian

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Keetch, Paul

  Webb, Steve

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

  Willis, Phil

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. Bob Russell and

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House "welcomes the fact that the Government will be introducing a Bill to modernise the Post Office; notes the contrast with years of Tory inaction, that left the Post Office to decline; welcomes the reduction of the External Financing Limit and the ability to borrow which will boost the Post Office's ability to invest for the future, welcomes for the first time the clear commitment of the Government to a network throughout the United Kingdom of post offices which will be automated, and to introduce for the first time criteria for access to Post Office services; welcomes the fact that for the first time the Universal Service Obligation will be guaranteed in legislation; welcomes the study by the Performance and Innovation Unit which is looking at the future of the network; and notes that the policies of the Opposition would undoubtedly lead to the decline of the Post Office."
  10.22 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This follows the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) this afternoon. I understand from the media this evening that, despite the dangerously unstable situation in Indonesia and the failure to make any progress on the release of East Timorese refugees who are still in West Timor, the Government have taken the arms embargo off Indonesia. I wish that the Minister would come to the House to make a statement to hon. Members, instead of announcing it on the media.
  Madam Speaker: Perhaps I could refer the hon. Lady to a question that was tabled on Friday for answer today, on the status of the European Union arms embargo on Indonesia. She might like to follow that through. Meanwhile, I am sure that, yet again, the Government Front-Bench team will have noted the concern of hon. Members in many parts of the House on the issue.

  Post Office Services

    POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS BILL
    Ordered,
    That Standing Committee G be discharged from considering Part I (the Electoral Commission) and Part VII (Referendums) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to those Parts, and that those Parts of the Bill, and such new Clauses and new Schedules, be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
    That, when the provisions of the Bill considered respectively by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Sandra Gregory
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Although Sandra Gregory was arrested almost seven years ago, it is the first time that her case has been raised in the House. The reason is that a process has been going on for the past seven years, but that appears now to be stalled. It is necessary for the House to address that. A number of hon. Members have supported the case, particularly the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has said that she would have been here if she had not been away on other business. She and I have together raised the matter with Ministers.
  I remind the House that Sandra Gregory was arrested on 3 February 1993 at Bangkok airport and found to be in possession of 89 g of heroin in condoms that were secreted internally. She claimed that she was carrying the heroin on behalf of an acquaintance, Robert Locke, for a payment of £1,000, to be used for her fare back to the United Kingdom. The Thai authorities were apparently tipped off by the British embassy that Locke was suspected of drug trafficking, although it had no knowledge of Sandra Gregory. In the event, she was clearly compromised with undeniable possession.
  Locke pleaded not guilty, and, with only Sandra's evidence against him, was acquitted—although, ironically, he was convicted of being in possession of heroin while in prison in Thailand and sentenced to three years. He has also been convicted of a heroin offence since his return to the United Kingdom.
  Sandra had no option but to plead guilty, and was subsequently sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. Sandra's offence was attempting to export drugs. Had she been caught with that amount—89 g—within Thailand, it would not have been an offence as it was under 100 g, which is the limit of what is regarded as being for personal use. The current street value of the drug is about £9,000.
  Sandra was not motivated by greed—she was not planning to sell the drug or realise its value. She was accepting payment for acting as what is known in the trade as a mule. It was not, as some people have suggested, an act of greed but an act of irrational desperation by a sick and homesick young woman.
  As it was a mandatory minimum sentence, mitigating circumstances were not considered. However, at the time of the offence, Sandra Gregory was suffering from dengue fever and amoebic dysentery, had lost more than 25 per cent. of her body weight and was desperate to get back to the United Kingdom. She was, in her mother's words,
  "not really in her right mind".
  Neither Sandra nor her parents—Stan and Doreen, who live in my constituency—deny that an offence was committed, or that Sandra should have been punished. The issue is entirely one of proportionality.
  Under the Thai judicial system, the normal process of appealing for someone in Sandra's position is through an appeal to the King. Sandra was able to initiate that process only after conviction, which was delayed for three years, pending the outcome of Robert Locke's trial.
  660
  Sandra is now completing the seventh year of her sentence, and still does not know when her appeal to the King will be considered. She was told that it would be before Christmas, then in the new year. The latest information is that it may not be for another six months which, in itself, is an added frustration.
  The Government maintain that it is not policy to support clemency appeals for British nationals under foreign jurisdictions other than in exceptional cases, which seems to mean cases involving, for example, the terminal illness of the prisoner or a next of kin. United Kingdom practice, however, seems to differ very sharply from the practice of other Governments and does not even seem to be consistently applied by our own Government.
  If Sandra Gregory were an Australian, she would receive automatic Government support for a clemency appeal. If Sandra were an American, she would have her sentence reduced to take account of time spent in a Thai prison. The Americans multiply Thai prison years by six. Therefore, Sandra's three years spent in a jail in Bangkok would have been regarded as 18 years in the American system, so that she would have been immediately eligible for parole on her return home and would now have been deemed to have served the entire sentence without remission.
  The Dutch Government review the sentence of those who are transferred from conviction under foreign jurisdiction back to Holland against the domestic equivalent sentence. In Sandra's case, her sentence would have been a maximum of four years.
  Since her return to the United Kingdom, Sandra has spent time in Holloway, Wakefield, and Durham maximum security wing, and she is currently at Cookham Wood, in Kent. She is serving the third longest sentence of any woman in a United Kingdom prison, with only Myra Hindley and Rosemary West serving longer sentences—life meaning life in both cases. While Sandra Gregory was in Durham, she was in the same wing as Rosemary West, and certainly felt great resentment that she was treated as being the same category of criminal.
  The effect has been that Sandra Gregory—a first-time offender who bitterly regrets her crime and is repentant—has seen professional criminals, with a serious track record of serious crimes, come in and out of prison while she continues to languish.
  A little over a year after Sandra's arrest, another British woman was arrested in Bangkok, trying to export 7 kg of heroin. On conviction, she was sentenced to life imprisonment. That sentence was reduced on appeal to 35 years and then to 25 years in a general amnesty. Recently, her appeal to the King for clemency, which has been heard even though she was arrested more than a year after Sandra Gregory, resulted in her sentence being reduced to 10 years. That appeal was apparently supported by United Kingdom Customs and Excise. How is that consistent with the Government's stated policy? The reason given to me was that she gave evidence leading to the conviction of other drug dealers. She is now eligible for parole, although she and her family are in such danger that they will have to find new identities. Patricia Hussain, the woman in question, had previous convictions for theft, fraud and prostitution and was carrying not 89 g of heroin, but 7 kg.
  I have no doubt that Sandra Gregory, who met Patricia Hussain when they were in prison in Thailand, wishes her well, but she would not be human if she did not feel that

  661
  there was some difference in approach. When Sandra's parents and I asked the Foreign Office for an explanation, Nicolette Smith of the consular division said in a letter on 30 November:
  "Consular confidentiality precludes my commenting on Patricia Hussain's situation."
  I hope that the Minister might feel able to explain how the difference can be justified. It cannot be justice that someone convicted for a far more serious offence should get Government agency support and now be eligible for release while Sandra Gregory faces another four years before becoming eligible for parole.
  Sandra's parents, Stan and Doreen, have supported their daughter throughout and worked for a fair assessment of her sentence. They have behaved with great dignity and quiet determination. They hurt to see her mood swings, and the prime years of her life wasting away. I participated in a live television programme with them in Aberdeen yesterday. They were not told in advance that there would be a video at the start of the programme showing Sandra's arrest and conviction and her obvious distress and resentment. I have nothing but respect for their ability to argue their case rationally in such circumstances.
  In the past year, Stan and Doreen Gregory have sought and won support for Sandra's application for clemency from a wide cross-section of people. They have received the backing of the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland. They have had the support of 35 Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, including one archbishop. Fifty seven Members of Parliament from all parties, including former Cabinet Ministers, have signed a motion calling on the Government to support her appeal to the King. More than 30 Members of the Scottish Parliament have backed a similar motion. Many others have given public or private support.
  I am as aware as any Member of Parliament of the seriousness of drugs crimes. I support the need for tough penalties, especially for traffickers, which Sandra Gregory was not. However, that does not mean that the normal rules of justice can be set aside. Sandra Gregory is as much a victim of drugs as many others. While she faces the prospect of at least another four years in jail before she is even eligible for parole, the serious dealers go free to carry on their trafficking. They have the power to escape while minnows such as Sandra Gregory are left to take the rap.
  What assurances can the Minister give Sandra's family that the lack of British Government support for her appeal to the King will not prejudice her chances? Is that lack of support already contributing to the continuing delay in her appeal being heard? Does the Minister know why the delay has occurred and when a final hearing and adjudication will be carried out? What firm assurances can be given that the delay will not continue indefinitely? Will the Government make it clear, respectfully, to the King of Thailand that there is widespread support in the UK for Sandra's sentence to be reviewed and reduced?
  Will the Government convey to the King the fact that lack of support is an issue of general policy, and does not mean that the British Government do not believe that there may be a strong case for clemency? Can the Minister deny, on the basis of the treatment of nationals of countries other than the UK and the outcome of the
  662
  Hussain appeal, that it would now be appropriate for Sandra Gregory's sentence to be reduced to 10 years or less, making her now eligible for parole?
  Sandra Gregory should be punished. She is being punished. Her parents are being punished. Is it not now time for mitigating circumstances to be fully considered? Should not her punishment be compared with her offence and the punishment of others? Is it not now disproportionate? Indeed, may her parents be right in believing that it may be in breach of the European convention on human rights? Does the Minister understand the hurt and offence—expressed to me yesterday—caused to Stan and Doreen Gregory by seeing Kosovo war criminals, who have been convicted of systematic cold-blooded mass murder, getting lighter sentences than their daughter? Are not these fair comparisons? Is not the Government in danger of unfairness and inconsistency?
  Sandra Gregory is paying dearly for her crime. She should not be made a scapegoat for those who are not.
  10.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for putting some pertinent questions and powerful arguments, of which I am sure the Thai authorities will take note. I am glad of the opportunity to tell the House of the interest that the Government have shown in Sandra Gregory's case.
  I also wish to take this opportunity to outline our review of policy on making representations in support of pleas for clemency by British prisoners abroad to the authorities of the countries where they are detained.
  The Government are steadfastly committed to tackling serious crime, including drug smuggling. We co-operate with other countries in this, both bilaterally and multilaterally. Just because a drug criminal is British is no excuse—there should be no more leniency than for other nationals committing similar crimes. British nationals detained abroad are subject to local jurisdiction wherever they commit their crimes. We respect the right of other countries to decide their own sentencing guidelines in accordance with their laws, customs and culture—just as we would ask them to do for us.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, Sandra Gregory was arrested at Bangkok international airport in February 1993, when 86.9 grammes of heroin were found concealed inside her body. She pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, and was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. This is an extremely long sentence by British standards, although it was reduced in 1996 by two years in His Majesty the King of Thailand's golden jubilee amnesty.
  On 5 June 1997, Sandra transferred to a British prison under the terms of the UK-Thailand prisoner transfer agreement. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that Australia does not have a prisoner transfer agreement, which is why there is a different situation for that country. The move greatly facilitates visits from her family, and allows her to be in an English-speaking environment—albeit in the difficult circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House—with the same rights and privileges as other British prisoners. She will become eligible for parole in 2003. She may also benefit from any further general reduction in sentences in future amnesties by His Majesty the King of Thailand.

  663
  In May 1997, Sandra submitted her royal pardon petition to His Majesty the King of Thailand. She wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 10 June 1997, asking him to give official support to her royal pardon petition. Our policy at the time was to support petitions only when there were compelling compassionate circumstances—for example, where a prisoner was terminally ill and unlikely to survive their sentence, or where a relative was terminally ill and their death would leave elderly relatives, or young children with no-one to care for them.
  Sandra was 29 at the time of her arrest and had lived in Thailand for more than 18 months. She knew how tough the Thai laws on drugs were. She admitted that she had agreed to carry the drugs for an acquaintance and for financial gain. She was in good health, with no dependent relatives. After consideration, we declined to support Sandra's plea because there were insufficient compassionate or humanitarian reasons. She did not qualify for support under the policy that I have outlined.
  Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister consider that suffering from dengue fever and amoebic dysentery and having lost 25 per cent. of one's bodyweight is good health? Are not those mitigating circumstances that a clemency appeal could consider?
  Mr. Hain: That will be taken into account, and was noted at the time.
  Since that time, Sandra Gregory's parents—I pay tribute to them—have urged us consistently to reverse our decision because they believe that Sandra's sentence is disproportionately long by comparison with the sentence that she would have received in the United Kingdom for a similar conviction, which is undoubtedly the case. They have organised an effective campaign, gaining support from Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, members of the public and the Church.
  Sandra accepts that what she did was wrong and she is sorry. I have every sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Gregory; as a parent, I would probably have done the same had one of my children been in this predicament; I admire their efforts and the dignified way in which they have conducted their campaign.
  In the light of that, in March 1999 we began a review of our policy on making representations about the convictions and sentencing of British prisoners abroad to the authorities of the countries where they are detained. We focused particularly on support for clemency pleas. The review was a complex exercise and took a long time.
  There are more than 2,000 British prisoners overseas. We identified 243 prisoners serving sentences of at least five years in countries where there are clemency schemes; 93 of them were in Thailand and 21 in Morocco. We found that we could not discriminate among them, or even prioritise their clemency pleas.
  Disregarding the drug offenders would not help Sandra. Supporting all the pleas for pardons simultaneously would damage our credibility and severely limit the chances of success for any of the pleas. Even if we were to reduce the list to prisoners with sentences of at least 10 years we would still have 142 potential pleas to consider.
  Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Minister accept that even if there are 2,000 other prisoners, to have this British
  664
  young Lady serving this sentence in a British jail is an exceptional circumstance, especially given the disquiet in Gordon, throughout Scotland and in the House?
  Mr. Hain: It is a troubling circumstance. That is why I am grateful that the matter has been raised.
  Some prisoners have argued that overseas penal and judicial systems do not always take account of mitigating circumstances and that the Government should therefore also support pleas for early release if the prisoners have received a much longer sentence than they might have done in the UK, as Sandra Gregory's case shows, but just as we would not accept other countries seeking to determine our laws and customs, we must accept their right to decide sentencing guidelines in accordance with their laws, customs and culture. The guidelines often reflect strong political pressures to impose deterrent sentences to dissuade others from making a bad drugs problem any worse.
  Our policy on official support for pardon applications was already in line with that operated by Her Majesty's Prison Service. Early release of foreign prisoners in the UK on compassionate grounds is covered by section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In general, the circumstances looked for by the Prison Service are terminal illness of the prisoner; terminal illness and/or death of a spouse when there will be no one to care for the children; and when there is no one to care for a terminally ill parent.
  If we accept other countries' rights to sentence as they wish, that we do not intervene in that judicial process and that our policy on supporting clemency pleas abroad is in line with our policy at home, it follows that we have little scope for modifying our policy.
  We have looked at the issue from every angle, but we could not look at Sandra's case in isolation. After very careful consideration and taking all factors into account, we decided not to change our policy on supporting clemency pleas. Our primary concern was to ensure that the policy should be based on clear and objective criteria. We decided that that was best achieved by the existing guidelines—only supporting clemency pleas when there were certain clear compassionate grounds to do so. That unfortunately means that we were not able to support Sandra's plea for clemency.
  British nationals detained abroad are subject to local jurisdiction wherever they commit their crimes and we have to respect the right of other countries to decide their own sentencing guidelines. Indeed, we expect the same respect ourselves. The harsh penalties imposed in some states for offences such as drug trafficking and sex offences are widely advertised and very few prisoners can genuinely claim to have been ignorant of them. Our travel advice notices for countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Morocco and Saudi Arabia include warnings about their sentencing policies.
  We know the strong support that Sandra's case has attracted, which has been reflected this evening. Indeed, I stress that we have brought that support to the attention of the Thai authorities and I am sure that this debate will similarly be brought to their attention. Our embassy in Bangkok wrote to the Thai authorities on 25 August 1999 to draw their attention to a petition submitted by Sandra's

  665
  supporters in the UK. Our embassy wrote again on 3 November 1999 to explain our policy to them and to make it clear to the Thai authorities that our lack of formal support should not act to deter them from exercising clemency.
  In any case, success or failure of clemency pleas does not rest on Government support. Unsupported clemency pleas have been successful in Thailand and a Government-supported plea on behalf of a prisoner with a terminal illness was unsuccessful.
  The Thais have been considering Sandra's royal pardon petition for two and a half years. In December 1999, we were told that we would hear the decision of Sandra's royal pardon petition early in the new year—the hon. Gentleman rightly asked about that point. However, on 6 January, our embassy in Bangkok was told that it is now likely to be known in the middle of this year. While we sympathise with Sandra's family, and anyone who is separated from their loved ones, the compassionate circumstances do not exist that would warrant the Government formally supporting her plea to the Thai authorities for early release, but that does not mean that we have not made representations. I am sure that the Thai authorities will also take careful note of this debate.
  666
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the case of Patricia Hussain. The Government declined to support Ms Hussain's royal pardon petition because there were insufficient compassionate circumstances. However, we did write to the Thai Foreign Minister in late 1997 explaining that we would not support her plea, but drawing his attention to the way in which Ms Hussain had co-operated with the Customs authorities in the UK and the United States following her arrest. On 11 November 1999, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed our embassy in Bangkok that Ms Hussain's plea for clemency had been granted and her sentence reduced further to 10 years. She now qualifies to be considered for release on parole according to UK parole regulations.
  The decision to grant Ms Hussain clemency rested entirely with the Thai authorities, as does the decision on Sandra's case. As I have already said, we have made similar representations on Sandra's behalf, most recently on 3 November 1999. I am sure that those responsible will take note of those recommendations, as I am sure that they will take note of the powerful arguments expressed in the House this evening by the hon. Member for Gordon.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ladbroke Grove Rail Accident
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the prospects for criminal prosecutions being started relating to the Paddington rail disaster. [104709]

  The Solicitor-General
  The British Transport Police are conducting a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the train collision in the vicinity of Ladbroke Grove on Tuesday 5 October 1999. As the police complete aspects of their inquiries, they intend to submit for advice reports, together with supporting evidence, to the Crown Prosecution Service. The prospects for criminal proceedings by the CPS are dependent on evidence derived from the police investigation, and not, for example, from evidence given to the public inquiry to be conducted by Lord Cullen, as that inquiry has an entirely different function. It is plainly not possible to anticipate, nor is it appropriate to speculate on, what evidence will be obtained by the police. When police inquiries conclude, the decision on whether or not to institute criminal proceedings will be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service, in consultation with the Law Officers. I understand that the HSE will also be considering the possibility of bringing a prosecution.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the decision to offer immunity to railway companies offering evidence to the inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident. [104629]

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent representations he has received relating to immunity from prosecution for those giving evidence before a tribunal with special reference to the Paddington rail disaster; and if he will make a statement. [104710]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 29 November 1999 the Attorney-General authorised Lord Cullen to provide potential witnesses to his inquiry with the following undertaking:"To undertake in respect of any person who provides evidence to the inquiry that no evidence he or she may give before the inquiry (whether orally or by written statement) nor any written statement made preparatory to giving evidence nor any documents produced by that person to the inquiry will be used in evidence against him or her in any criminal proceedings, except in proceedings where he or she is charged with having given false evidence in the course of this inquiry or having conspired with or procured others to do so".

  The purpose of authorising Lord Cullen to provide an undertaking in these terms was to enable him to begin his inquiry immediately, and to ensure that it would be fully effective. It was certain that without such an undertaking being given potential witnesses would be inhibited from providing Lord Cullen with full assistance. The public
  244W
  interest clearly favoured Lord Cullen undertaking his inquiry as soon as possible, and thereafter proceeding quickly, so that lessons can be learned from the circumstances that led to this tragedy. The undertaking is not the same as an immunity from prosecution: it has a much more limited effect.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Water Industry (Mersey Basin)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the environmental improvements agreed by Ofwat for the Mersey Basin for the next price review to be completed in 2005. [104292]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have placed in the House Libraries a list of the schemes allowed for in the final determination of water industry price limits announced by Director General Ofwat on 25 July 1999, which will improve the waters in the Mersey Basin. The list is made up of 60 continuous discharges and 516 intermittent discharges. These were proposed by the Environment Agency and approved by me as part of my guidance to Ofwat on the provision to be made for investments by water companies to achieve environmental improvements. The Environment Agency is exploring in more detail the benefits of a further five schemes to allow us to assess these against improved information on costs from Ofwat and North West Water.

  International Panel on Pollution Control
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) other EU member states in respect of a common basis of charging for IPPC throughout the EU; and what response he has received. [104114]

  Mr. Hill
  The IPPC Directive makes no provision for a common charging scheme; in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, charging is a matter for individual member states.

  London Underground (Investment)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is forecast to be the total level of investment in the London Underground in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [104230]

  Mr. Prescott
  (a) Planned investment in the Underground in 2000–01 totals £753 million (in outturn prices). This comprises investment of £535 million in the core Underground and a projected £218 million in payments to JLE contractors for investment that took place in previous years.

  (b) For 2001–02 and beyond, the Public Private Partnership currently under negotiation is designed to deliver around £8 billion worth of investment. PPP contractors will be required to implement a combination of specific projects and performance enhancements specified in terms of outputs to be delivered. Because the

  245W
  PPP contracts will require the delivery of service outputs, they will not generally specify particular works to be carried out or the amounts of money to be spent on them.

  Domestic Plumbing
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the regulations covering domestic plumbing will come into force; and if he will take steps to ensure toilet flushes using valves do not waste more water than those using syphon systems. [104424]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations came into force on 1 July 1999. They prevent the contamination and waste of water supplies. A WC Suite Performance Specification, made under the Regulations, will come into effect on 1 January 2001. This will require all new WC suites, whether they use valve or syphon flushing mechanisms, to perform to the same high standards of durability and water conservation.

  Transport White Paper (Countryside Proposals)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has(a) taken and ((b) proposes to implement the commitment in the Transport White Paper to a more peaceful countryside. [104576]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department is an active participant in the Countryside Agency's Countryside Traffic Measures Group, and its Quiet Roads and Greenways Network Co-ordination Meetings. We provide support in the form of advice when required on traffic signing, and on highways and traffic matters. Research is in place, and more is planned, to monitor the success of schemes in these initiatives.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to support the adoption of a biosafety protocol allowing Governments to prohibit imports of genetically modified organisms. [104586]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes. The Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity would establish Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) procedures, whereby a Party of import could accept or refuse imports of certain living (genetically) modified organisms (LMOs) on the basis of the impacts on biodiversity.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to support the adoption of a biosafety protocol making companies that produce genetically modified organisms legally liable for any future damage to the environment or public health resulting from the import of those GMOs by another country. [104584]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity resuming in Montreal later this month, we will continue to support an enabling provision that would adopt a process elaborating international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress for damage resulting from 246W
  transboundary movements of living (genetically) modified organisms, and endeavour to complete the process within four years.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to support the adoption of a biosafety protocol requiring the separation of genetically modified grain from other grain. [104585]

  Mr. Meacher
  The draft text of the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity does not require separation. However, EU Ministers have agreed that information exchange and documentation requirements are needed under the Protocol and should ensure satisfactory transparency and monitoring of movements of LMOs as well as their identification, which would also enable traceability.

  Train Protection Systems
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what progress has been made with the train operating companies in respect of installing train protection systems; [104597]

  (2) what timetable has been agreed for the installation of train protection systems in all rolling stock, including the final date for completion. [104665]

  Mr. Hill
  The Railway Safety Regulations, laid before Parliament on 10 August 1999, requires train protection systems to be introduced and operational across the railway network by the end of 2003 at the latest.

  At the Rail Safety Summit on 30 November the train operators announced that they have agreed a timetable to fit 33 per cent. of trains by the end of 2001, 75 per cent. of trains by the end of 2002 and all trains by the end of 2003. Also at the Summit, Railtrack agreed to aim to install train protection at 12,000 sites by the end of 2002.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision he has reached about the preferred system of train protection. [104628]

  Mr. Hill
  Following the Ladbroke Grove train accident the Government asked Sir David Davies, the President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, to report on the effectiveness, practicability and cost of train protection systems, and on how best to reduce the present incidence of signals passed at danger (SPADs). Ministers expect to receive his report shortly.

  This information will be available to Lord Cullen (who is conducting the Public Inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident) and Professor Uff (conducting the Southall Inquiry), and they will jointly consider train protection systems. The Health and Safety Commission will advise the Government on any recommendations they make.

  Confidential Telephone Reporting Systems
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what time scale has been agreed with the train operating companies and Railtrack to install the confidential telephone reporting system; and what is the final deadline for its implementation. [104596]
  247W
  Mr. Hill
  At the second Rail Safety Summit on 30 November 1999 Railtrack and the train operating companies agreed that the independent and confidential incident reporting system, which will allow all staff to phone in any safety concerns, will be extended throughout Great Britain by the end of 2000. Regional contracts are to be let by April 2000. The system will be fully operative by the end of 2000.

  Underground Storage Tanks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to provide funding for(a) enforcing and overseeing corrective action at leaking underground storage tank sites and (b) clean-ups (i) where the owner or operator is unknown, or is unwilling or unable to respond and (ii) which require emergency action. [104638]

  Mr. Meacher
  The main responsibilities for regulating underground storage tanks, including enforcing and overseeing corrective action when they are leaking, are held by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the petroleum licensing authorities. The legal powers available to these bodies, and the detailed allocation of responsibilities between them, varies according to what is stored in the tank and the type of pollution incident involved. The Environment Agency is funded through grant-in-aid paid by my department as well as by charges paid by those seeking permits and licences. The Health and Safety Executive is also funded through grant-in-aid as well as from charges for certain activities which are recovered from industry. The petroleum licensing authorities are part of local government, and as such are funded through a combination of council tax, non-domestic rates and revenue support grant paid by my Department.

  In cases where leaks have occurred and clean-up action is necessary, responsibility for paying for the work generally falls on the owner or operator of the tank. Depending on what was stored in the tank, and the nature of the problems which the leak has caused, this responsibility may be enforced under a number of legal powers. These include the works notice system in sections 161–161D of the Water Resources Act 1991, under which the Environment Agency may itself carry out works in an emergency or where it appears after reasonable inquiry that no person can be found on whom to serve a works notice; the statutory nuisance regime in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and the Groundwater Regulations 1998. These powers will be supplemented in April by a new regime for remediating contaminated land, under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (which was inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995). An additional £12 million per year has been added to Standard Spending Assessments for local authorities in England to support their role under the new contaminated land regime.

  The Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval programme also provides capital expenditure support for local authorities in England to deal with cases where land contamination is causing unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, and where no-one else can be made to pay for the necessary remediation. This could include circumstances where leaks have occurred from underground storage tanks. The total provision in
  248W
  the current financial year for this programme is £12.082 million. A further £1.958 million has been provided to the Environment Agency as additional grant-in-aid to support equivalent work it is carrying out.

  Transport Symposium, Kegworth
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for Ministers to attend the symposium, organised by the Institution of Highways and Transportation, on 20 January at Kegworth, Derby. [104579]

  Mr. Hill
  No invitation was extended to Ministers to speak at the symposium.

  Local Government Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the increased contributions which local government employers will have to make to their pension schemes in order to offset the effect of the ACT charges in the 1997 Budget; and what these extra contributions are as a percentage of the total payroll costs. [104674]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The effect of the abolition of advance corporation tax on employer contributions to local authority pension funds was one of many factors taken into account in the 1998 actuarial valuation exercise. Information on increases to individual local authority employers' contributions specifically attributable to this aspect of the exercise is not collected centrally.

  The Local Government Association estimated that the average net impact of the 1998 valuation, including the effect of the ACT changes on employers' contributions in 1999–2000 was 1 per cent., or about £130 million nationally. We have honoured undertakings given at the time of the 1997 Budget to take into account this and all the other factors identified in the valuation exercise in determining the level of local authority provision in 1999–2000, and for subsequent years.

  Millennium Celebration
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the river of fire on new year's eve worked according to plan; [104434]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the public transport arrangements in London on new year's eve. [104435]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 11 January 2000, Official Report, column 138. I would also add that the transport operators provided the absolute maximum service possible. Tube and DLR provided a peak level service from midnight to after 4 am (20 trains an hour for the tube). Train operators ran the maximum service possible from 1 am to after 4.30 am. LT ran nearly double the usual night bus service. We always warned that people should expect long delays. Most people were able to catch a train or tube before 2.30 am. Despite a very high level of attendance the transport operators were able to get people both safely to the event, and back home again after.
  249W
  It is true that the "River of Fire" did not live up to some people's expectations, but this should not detract from the spectacular success of the event. Indeed, CNN described London's Big Time fireworks as the
  "most spectacular firework show in the world".

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) who was responsible for planning and co-ordinating rail services and crowd control at central London stations, with particular reference to Waterloo, on new year's eve; [104611]

  (2) if he will hold an inquiry into the planning and management of crowd evacuation from central London railway stations, with particular reference to Waterloo, on New Year's Eve. [104605]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: A review of arrangements is an essential and routine part of any major event. All the organisations involved in key services on new year's eve already have them well in hand.

  ATOC worked with each of the train operating companies, along with the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, to plan and deliver the train services on millennium night into and out of central London stations, including Waterloo.

  There were 250 police officers in the immediate vicinity of Waterloo specially tasked with crowd control and public safety (and supplemented by colleagues from elsewhere).

  Environment Agency Chairman
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) the Environment Agency on headhunters in the process of finding a new Chairman for the Environment Agency. [105287]

  Mr. Meacher
  The appointment of a new Chairman for the Environment Agency is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who has met all costs involved.

  Recruitment consultants were employed to assist in finding a new Chairman. Headhunting was only a part of their duties and is not separately identifiable. The total cost of their work, including expenses, was £26,402.26 plus VAT. Advertisements were placed in the national press at an additional cost of £5,569 plus VAT.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 4W, on driving licences, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the use of private opticians. [105416]

  Mr. Hill
  The requirement for the provision of visual field charts is an expensive undertaking adding to the cost of the driving licence as well as creating customer service problems due to the waiting times in NHS out-patients clinics.
  250W
  Private opticians have therefore been invited to provide the service. This will mean savings of £504,000 in a year on fees and will help to improve turnaround performance of applications where drivers are required to have their visual field tested.

  Opticians will be providing reports within three weeks of request as opposed to three months for many hospital clinics.

  Utilities
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the result of his review of the contribution utilities should make to the cost of diverting their equipment for public transport schemes. [105675]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reviewed the decision announced by the then Minister for Transport on 29 October 1998, following representations made to him and comments received during consultation earlier this year on draft regulations under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

  Ministers have concluded that the earlier decision strikes a reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of the parties involved. I can therefore confirm that the utilities' contribution to diversionary works for "major transport works" (which as defined under the 1991 Act include rail based public transport schemes) will be reduced from 18 per cent. to 7.5 per cent., except that works that are of the nature of "major highways works" or "major bridge works" will continue to attract 18 per cent., whoever the works are done by.

  I will shortly be laying regulations to implement this decision. The regulations will now come into effect after they have been laid and not from the date of the 1998 announcement, as stated at the time.

  Alternative Fuels (HGVs)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of heavy goods vehicles run on alternative fuels. [105022]

  Mr. Hill
  DETR receives comprehensive data on the vehicle stock in Great Britain from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. These include the method of propulsion used to power vehicles. For those vehicles in the goods tax class at the end of June 1999, over 99 per cent. run on diesel. A further 0.7 per cent. run on petrol and less than 0.02 per cent. are recorded as running on other fuels.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the record of train operating companies in meeting punctuality and overcrowding targets will be taken into consideration when franchises for services are renewed; [105053]

  (2) if he will make it a condition of awarding or extending rail franchises that passenger facilities including toilets, public telephones, CCTV, and park and ride, are provided at town centre railway stations. [105052]
  251W
  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director has been instructed by the Secretary of State to have regard to the prospects for greater investment when considering the replacement of franchises. In pursuit of these instructions the Franchising Director is paying close attention to prospective franchisees' proposals for improving all aspects of the customer experience, including station facilities, security and integrated transport measures.

  In examining proposals for renegotiated, extended or new franchises, the Franchising Director has also been instructed to give due weight to the commitment of existing franchise operators to performance, efficiency and customer services.

  Road Tolling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a toll on foreign heavy goods vehicles entering the UK. [105024]

  Mr. Hill
  Any tolling scheme, or any form of levy, would have to apply to domestic vehicles as well as foreign. To discriminate against foreign vehicles would be illegal under Community law. The Transport Bill currently before Parliament contains enabling powers for local authorities to introduce charging schemes on their roads, but there are no plans at present to introduce widespread charging on the trunk road network.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a reduction in vehicle excise duty for vehicles powered by alternative fuels. [105023]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have taken a number of measures to promote the use of vehicles powered by alternative fuels. Gas powered lorries and buses already qualify for a vehicle excise duty concession of up to £1,000 and electrical vehicles are taxed at a concessionary rate of £40. The new graduated vehicle excise duty system for cars is being built in a flexible way which will allow scope to create additional incentives for vehicles using cleaner fuels and technology.

  Motorway Services (Parking Fines)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the levying of fines in relation to parking at motorway service centres. [105055]

  Mr. Hill
  We require the operators of motorway service areas (MSAs) to provide up to two hours free parking for all types of vehicle. Operators are allowed to charge for longer stays but whether to levy a charge and, if so, how to enforce it against drivers who do not pay, are matters for the operator.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to prevent train operating companies from extending journey times advertised in timetables to allow for delays. [105054]
  252W
  Mr. Hill
  Train Operating Companies (TOCs) must set their timetables within the framework of the Passenger Service Requirements (PSR). The PSR sets minimum service frequency, stations to be served, times of first and last trains and maximum journey times, based on the service provided by British Rail at the time of franchising. TOCs can alter the journey times of services but only within the maxima allowed in the PSR. Temporary dispensations may be granted to TOCs by the Franchising Director to extend journey times during periods of bad weather and at times such as the annual leaf fall in order to provide a reliable service to passengers.

  British Rail Assets
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the criteria for the sale of residual assets of British Rail which retain a potential public transport use. [105328]

  Mr. Hill
  Following a review by the British Railways Board/shadow Strategic Rail Authority of its property portfolio, the Government have agreed with the Chairman of the sSRA new marketing procedures which give priority to transport use. Under these arrangements the rail industry, local authorities and other transport interests are being informed of all the properties that BRB/sSRA have available including those judged to be of future transport potential. They are also being given prior notification of the intention to market all sites as they come up for sale and have the opportunity to seek a delay in order to work up a bid. All sites are to be sold at open market value in order to protect the taxpayers' interest. Full details are in the BRB's "Marketing Process" document which is available in the House Library.

  London Elections
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to lay orders under schedule 3 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 before the House. [105283]

  Mr. Hill
  I signed the order identifying the constituency returning officers for the Greater London Authority elections on 17 December, and it came into force on 22 December (SI No3380). I will be making the election rules and laying the order setting limits on campaign expenses for the GLA elections in due course.

  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whom he has decided to appoint as the Greater London Returning Officer for the Greater London Authority election on 4 May. [105841]

  Mr. Hill
  I am proposing to make an Order appointing Robert Hughes CBE as the Greater London Returning Officer. Mr. Hughes was the Chief Counting Officer for the Greater London Referendum in May 1998. He has wide experience of running elections and knows London well.

  Road Fund Licence (Enforcement)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been prosecuted since 1997 as a result of enforcement action taken by the Driving and Vehicle
  253W
  Licensing Agency for possessing a vehicle without a road fund licence; and how much has been collected as a result of this action. [105285]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of vehicle excise duty offenders prosecuted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for the period in question, together with the revenue from penalties collected, is set out in the table. The table also shows the numbers of offenders who settled cases out of court and the penalty revenue collected.

  Number

  Revenue £ million

  Prosecutions

  1997–98

  233,000

  38.8

  1998–99

  256,300

  45.4

  1999–20001

  180,000

  34.5

  Out of Court Settlements

  1997–98

  268,200

  14.4

  1998–99

  218,800

  12.5

  1999–20001

  142,000

  9.5

  1April-December

  Chrysotile Asbestos
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives have been taken by the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the marketing and use of Canadian chrysotile asbestos in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [104663]

  Mr. Meacher
  Canadian and other chrysotile asbestos has been banned. From 24 November 1999, Regulations prohibit the importation of chrysotile (white) asbestos and products containing it into the United Kingdom. They also prohibit the supply and use of chrysotile and its products within Great Britain. Comparable Regulations are expected shortly which will prohibit supply and use in Northern Ireland. A number of specialised safety-critical uses are temporarily permitted until safe substitutes have been developed.

  Free Travel (Disabled People)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide free or low-cost travel for those with a disability. [105163]

  Mr. Hill
  Local authorities outside London are enabled by the Transport Act 1985 to provide concessionary travel schemes for their resident disabled people, and many do so. Similar arrangements apply in London under different legislation. Financial assistance is provided through the overall support given to local authority expenditure in general. I have no plans to change these arrangements so far as my own responsibilities are concerned. In Scotland this is a matter for Scottish Ministers.

  All train operators are required to participate in the Disabled Persons Railcard which entitles holders to up to one third off a range of rail tickets.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make 254W
  a statement on the progress that his Department has made on its review of the local government standard spending assessment system. [104817]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The review of revenue grant distribution is well under way. Central and local government officials are jointly discussing a wide range of options for improving the method of distribution, and many councils have contributed their proposals. We have conducted an extensive survey of the opinions of members and officers and undertaken research into overseas distribution systems.

  Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will not be taken until we have consulted widely this summer.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the shortlist of proposed uses for the Millennium Dome after the millennium celebrations will be announced. [105842]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government have announced the six proposals for the shortlist today. They are:City of the Future, a theme park centred on the use of technology, proposed by Monex Leisure Ltd. and MEPC plc.
  Dome Europe, a high technology leisure, business and retail destination, proposed by the Principal Finance Group of Nomura International plc.
  Greenwich Media World, a high profile mixed use leisure and business destination focused on media and communications, proposed by a consortium comprising Pell Frischmann. London Merchant Securities, Sir Robert McAlpine, WestLB Panmure Ltd. and The Tussauds Group.
  International Merchandise and Cultural Centre, a global one-stop shop for exchanging goods, services and tourism promotions, proposed by a consortium comprising Country Heights Holdings Berhad, Sunrise Berhad and Maccon Investment Holdings (Proprietary) Ltd.
  Legacy plc, a high technology industrial campus of workspace, leisure and retail uses, proposed by Robert Bourne.
  Sports Dome 2001, an advanced multiple sports facility, proposed by a consortium comprising John Taylor International Ltd., Chelsfield Plc, Collard Grosvenor and Price Nicholson.

  The Dome has been instrumental in focusing regeneration activity on the Greenwich Peninsula and the Thames Gateway, and this is set to continue as a result of the response to this competition.

  English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, has transformed one of the largest tracts of derelict land in Europe, on the Greenwich Peninsula. The proposals emerging from this competition, together with other developments on the Peninsula and key public transport improvements, will take forward the major regeneration of this area.

  I have placed details of the shortlisted proposals in the Libraries of the house.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date it was decided that the consultation mechanism relating to business rating revaluation proposals in Wales should be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales from his Department; and on what date he announced this decision. [103738]
  255W
  Mr. Hanson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The functions of the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of business rates in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 were transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999, by virtue of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 No. 672 which was approved by the House of Commons on 24 February 1999.

  The process of consultation on various aspects of the business rating revaluation began before 1 July 1999 and was led by officials of the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions with Welsh Office involvement. On and after 1 July, the National Assembly for Wales continued to take part in the consultation process in place of the Welsh Office, relying on its powers in section 23(2) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to continue anything being done by a Minister of the Crown in respect of a transferred function.

  The UK Government did not need to make any formal decision or announcement about this, which was among the consequences of the approval by the House of the Transfer of Functions Order. It is one of many examples of work that continued in the transition from the Secretary of State to the National Assembly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Developing Countries
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to review the Government's options under trade agreements to safeguard access by developing countries to essential drugs; [104589]

  (2) what plans he has to review Government policy on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement and public health in developing countries. [104590]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are aware of concerns among some developing countries. However, the Government believe that there is nothing in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement which undermines the ability of developing countries to provide appropriate healthcare. Although the Agreement came into effect in 1995, developing country members have only to implement its provisions from this year and the least developed countries do not have to implement until 2006. The effects, benefits and problems arising from the agreement have therefore yet to emerge.

  A review of the implementation of the TRIPS agreement by WTO members will begin in June of this year and the Government will listen carefully to the views of other WTO members during the Review. It is, however, only in the context of a comprehensive new Round of negotiations that significant changes to the TRIPS agreement will be possible and it would be in that context that the Government would carry out a full review of their own policy.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the extension of the deadline for 256W
  complying with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement applicable to developing countries and to countries whose economy is in transition. [104587]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government believe that all signatories to the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement and other WTO agreements should fulfil their commitments in full and on time. They recognise, however, that some developing countries have genuine problems of capacity. In such cases, they would be ready to support alongside its EU partners sympathetic consideration in the relevant WTO Committee of a request for the extension of deadline, if this were accompanied by a work programme aimed at full implementation of the WTO agreement in question.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 31W, on the Ilisu Dam, if the representations from (a) the Syrian Ambassador and (b) the League of Arab States were (i) in favour and (ii) against the proposed dam. [105081]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Syrian Ambassador expressed concern that proper account had not been taken of the impact of the project on the Syrian economy, people and relations with Turkey or of legal obligations, and stressed the general sensitivity of water issues in the region.

  The League of Arab States expressed concern at the lack of information and consultation on the project.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make a decision on ECGD support for UK participation in the Ilisu Dam project. [104897]

  Mr. Caborn
  The application for ECGD support for the UK participation in the Ilisu Dam project has given rise to a number of social, political, environmental and cultural issues requiring further consideration between ECGD, the other export credit agencies involved, the Turkish authorities and the contractors. We will only agree support if these issues are addressed to our satisfaction. In any event no decision on support will be made until a revised Environmental Impact Assessment has been produced. This is expected in late March or April.

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104019]

  Mr. Byers
  In April 1999 the numbers of men and women employed in DTI Headquarters by age group were as follows:

  Age

  Men

  Women

  Total

  16–19

  1

  5

  6

  20–24

  36

  41

  77

  25–29

  204

  247

  451

  30–34

  414

  450

  864

  35–39

  486

  356

  842

  257W

  Age

  Men

  Women

  Total

  40–44

  389

  243

  632

  45–9

  405

  203

  608

  50+

  658

  296

  954

  Total

  2,593

  1,841

  4,434

  The Department's personnel database was set up in 1985 and does not include data on staff who left the Department before that date; full data on the age profile of staff in 1979 is not therefore available. However, the annual publication, "Civil Service Statistics", provides a departmental breakdown of staff by gender and Service-wide data by age for that year. In addition the Equal Opportunities Data Summary 1998 provides average age by responsibility level and gender across the Service.

  The figures exclude DTI staff in Government Offices and the DTI's Executive Agencies who have delegated responsibility for personnel issues.

  GATT
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the Government's assessment of the outcome of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, including the conclusions it has drawn concerning future trade negotiations. [104358]

  Mr. Caborn
  An assessment of the outcome of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations was published in May 1994 by the Government in a White Paper, "The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 1986–94" (Cm 2579). In relation to future trade negotiations, the Government published a consultation paper in May 1999 entitled "The UK and the World Trade Organisation: An Introduction to the Next Round" (DTI/Pub4140/5k/5/99/NP. URN 99/875). Both documents are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government's position in supporting the launch of a comprehensive Round of trade negotiations has been discussed in Parliament, most recently in the debate in European Standing Committee C on 22 November 1999. The Government's position is well reflected in the position of the EU and its support for the launch of a comprehensive Round remains strong since the failure of the Seattle Conference, as the Secretary of State said in the debate in the House on 9 December 1999,Official Report, columns 1022–94.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees of his Department took early retirement packages, and at what total cost, in the financial year 1996–97. [104099]

  Mr. Byers
  Two hundred and twenty seven employees took early retirement packages at a cost of some £1.4 million in the financial year 1996–97. This represents 20 per cent. of the costs, the other 80 per cent. being met by the Treasury under the 80:20 Scheme in force at the time.

  Match Funding
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was allocated from the social and 258W
  regional funds of the European Union to the United Kingdom during the 1999 financial year; what was the value of match funding from United Kingdom sources; and from what sources these match funds were derived. [105124]

  Mr. Caborn
  Allocations from the European Union's Structural Funds relate to multiannual programmes. Expenditure must be committed within the programme period, but may be spent up to two years after the end of the period. There are therefore no allocations for specific years, and expenditure during 1999 would be in the context of programmes approved during the 1994–99 financing period with expenditure allowed until the end of 2001.

  The level of match funding varies from programme to programme. The sources of match funding will depend on the nature of the many individual projects. It is the responsibility of applicants for funding to identify the sources of match funding for their projects. Programme secretariats can advise on this. There are many potential sources, e.g. central government, local authorities, the voluntary and private sectors. No central records exist of the sources of match funding used for individual projects.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is the Government's policy to support the expansion of the World Trade Organisation's remit to cover negotiations on(a) investment, (b) Government procurement and (c) guidelines for the behaviour of multinational enterprises. [105062]

  Mr. Caborn
  It remains Government policy to support a comprehensive round of negotiations in the WTO, including investment and government procurement. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are currently under review in the OECD with particular focus on their more effective implementation and wider dissemination. We believe that the review of the Guidelines will make them of greater relevance and use for business, other organisations and governments alike.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals his Department has in respect of the World Trade Organisation to enable multilateral trade agreements to work in concert with multilateral environmental agreements. [105060]

  Mr. Caborn
  At the recent WTO Ministerial conference in Seattle, the UK and the EU pressed for a new Round of trade negotiations to include a clarification of the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures taken within multilateral environmental agreements. The Seattle conference was suspended without agreement on the terms for a new Round, but we continue to press for this subject to be included in future WTO negotiations.

  Glassmaking
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications for(a) grant or (b) other financial support he has received for a glass factory to be operated in the north west of England by Quinn Glass. [104767]
  259W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Any applications are commercially confidential, it is therefore not possible for me to provide this information.

  Plutonium Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the relevant Swiss electricity company and the Swiss nuclear regulatory authorities in respect of problems discovered with MOX plutonium fuel exported to Switzerland from Sellafield. [104698]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None. This is a matter for the companies and the national regulatory authorities concerned.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 235W, on plutonium fuel, if he is in a position to make public the details of the remedial measures being put in place to rectify safety management problems in MOX nuclear fuel manufacture at Sellafield; and what further meetings he has had with the HSE (N11) on this matter since 1 December 1999. [104726]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The work to address the issues associated with the falsification of quality assurance data at BNFL's MOX Demonstration Facility at Sellafield is still continuing. As I made clear in my reply of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 235W, I have asked the company to make public details of the remedial measures being taken as soon as possible, consistent with the need to address these matters thoroughly and to satisfy the HSE fully as to the adequacy of the company's proposals. On 15 December 1999, I received a briefing from HSE's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations on progress with HSE's independent investigation into this matter. I understand HSE intend to publish a report on their findings next month.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 457W, concerning eligibility of wards for assisted area status in Dumfries and Galloway, what is the nature of the personal information referred to in his answer. [104419]

  Mr. Caborn
  Some of the information used in identifying areas of significant labour market weakness is confidential as it was collected under the provisions of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, in particular the manufacturing activity within wards.

  Independent Assessment Panel
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the membership of the Independent Assessment Panel for the Partnership Fund. [105515]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  An independent Assessment Panel of nine members is to recommend to Ministers which projects should receive funding in the first round of the £5 million Partnership Fund.
  260W
  The nine members of the Assessment Panel—three trade unionists, three industrialists and three independent experts—will report to Ministers who will then make the final decisions on which projects have been successful. The successful applicants for funding under the Partnership Fund will be announced in Spring 2000.

  Appointments are for a period of one year renewable for up to four years from 20 December 1999. Members are unpaid although travel and subsistence expenses are available.

  The members of the Assessment Panel are:

  Ms Yvonne Bennion, Policy Specialist at the Industrial Society

  Mr. David Coats, Head of Economic and Social Affairs Department at the TUC

  Mr. Bill Connor, General Secretary of USDAW

  Mr. Willy Coupar (Chairman of the Panel), Director of the IPA

  Mrs. Lesley James, formerly HR Director of Tesco plc.

  Mr. Mike Kinski, Group Chief Executive of Stagecoach Holdings plc.

  Dr. Clive Morton OBE, Business Development Director at Anglian Water

  Mrs. Margaret Prosser OBE, Deputy General Secretary of TGWU

  Mr. John Stevens, Director of Development & Public Policy at the IPD

  Brief biographies of the members of the Panel have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's target date for replacing the UK electricity pool system. [105421]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The target for the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements is autumn 2000.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the impact on the electricity pool price of the fire at Drax Power Station in December; and if he will make a statement on the related discussions he has had with the industry on this subject. [105420]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As a result of a fire at Drax power station on 27 December I understand that part of the output of the station will be unavailable for a period. It is not uncommon for some generating plants to be unavailable for technical reasons and there is adequate generating capacity available on the system to cover such incidents. The incident at Drax affected only around 1 per cent. of the available generation on the England and Wales system and the impact on Pool prices is small.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the decision by the Japanese electricity company Kansai Electric Power to return nuclear fuel to Britain.[105266]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have noted Kansai Electric's statement of 10 January that they will ask BNFL to return the eight fuel assemblies at the Takahama 4 reactor to the UK. This raises a number of issues which
  261W
  will need to be explored by the Japanese and UK Governments before Kansai and BNFL reach any conclusions.

  Part-time Work Directive
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Part-time Work Directive. [105542]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am today publishing a consultation document setting out the Government's proposals for implementing the Part-time Work Directive by means of regulations giving part-timers the right to be treated no less-favourably than comparable full-timers. The consultation lasts until 27 February, and I expect to lay Regulations soon afterwards.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans the Government have to help alleviate suffering in Sudan. [104359]

  Mr. Foulkes
  This financial year we have pledged £8 million to respond to humanitarian needs in Sudan. Though suffering in the country is not as severe as during the crisis of 1998 we are following the situation closely. Ending the war is the key to alleviating the suffering in Sudan and we are working hard with our international partners to support the current peace efforts sponsored by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received concerning religious discrimination in Government-run peace camps in Southern Sudan. [104367]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Peace Camps or Peace Villages set up by the Government of Sudan in the Nuba Mountain region have been accused of being part of the Government's alleged aim of islamisation of the people. However, given the scarcity of information from that region we are unable to determine the true situation. Last year's United Nations assessment mission to the region did not identify religious discrimination as a problem, but the subject was not part of the mission's terms of reference.

  Ethiopia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many applications for aid have been made by non-Governmental organisations concerning aid projects in Ethiopia; and how many have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected. [104679]

  Mr. Foulkes
  During the current financial year, DFID has received 10 applications from NGOs for humanitarian aid projects. Five of these have been accepted, four rejected, and one is currently under consideration.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement concerning the current humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. [104677]
  262W
  Mr. Foulkes
  In Ethiopia, recent estimates by the Government of Ethiopia, endorsed by the World Food Programme, give a total of 6.9 million people in need of food aid assistance due to adverse weather. An additional 385,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs), from the war zone in the border area disputed with Eritrea, are also in need of assistance.

  In Eritrea, the results of the conflict with Ethiopia are the principal cause of the present humanitarian situation. Those affected include 250,000 IDPs, a similar number of war-affected (mainly those households who have taken in IDPs) and 64,000 people who have been deported from Ethiopia. There are also some rural areas which are drought affected, and FAO is currently conducting a survey with the Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture to assess the extent of this problem.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made concerning the drought conditions in Ethiopia. [104678]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development (DFID) relies on the assessments of the United Nations, the Government of Ethiopia, NGOs and USAID in monitoring the drought conditions in Ethiopia. We do not seek to duplicate the work of these organisations. We employ a Field Manager in Addis Ababa who regularly participates in joint assessment missions with the Ethiopian Government and other donors, participates in food aid co-ordination meetings and visits areas identified for potential DFID assistance. The official is backed up by regular visits from a senior natural resources adviser based in London.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy on the provision of development aid to(a) Ethiopia and (b) Sudan. [104676]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The UK is completing current commitments in Ethiopia and continuing to provide humanitarian assistance but will not agree any new funding proposals until the war with Eritrea has ended.

  UK Development Aid to Sudan ceased in January 1991. Substantial humanitarian assistance to Sudan has continued since then.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response her Department has made to the Ethiopian Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission's appeal, entitled Emergency Relief Needs in Ethiopia-January-March 2000. [104681]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development's (DFID) policy is to channel emergency food relief through NGOs or UN agencies.

  Current and planned projects which are relevant to this Appeal are as follows:
  DFID has recently approved a £1.1 million project for provision of 3,000 metric tonnes (mt) of emergency food aid to Konso, in the southern region of Ethiopia. This will be distributed between

  263W
  January and April 2000, through a project implemented by the British NGO, FARM Africa, in collaboration with Ethiopian local government agencies.
  We are already funding a 3,000 mt food aid intervention in Koisha, southern region, which runs to the end of January. DFID is presently reviewing a proposal for a further 6,240 mt of food aid to be distributed through an NGO project in Wollo, Amhara Region.
  We are also contributing indirectly through EU food aid commitments.

  Chrysotile Asbestos
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is taken by the Government to ensure that developing countries are aware of the hazards of chrysotile asbestos and to discourage the dumping of this product in developing and third-world countries; and if she will make a statement. [104662]

  Clare Short
  Regulations prohibiting the import of chrysotile asbestos into the UK came into force in November 1999, meeting an EU Directive that requires all member states to introduce legislation banning asbestos by 1 January 2005.

  We will support the European Commission's intention to propose to the Rotterdam Convention's Interim Chemical Review Committee (ICRC) that the remaining asbestos fibres, including chrysotile, be added to Annexe 111 (Chemicals subject to the PIC Procedure) of the Convention. If the ICRC are content, then the proposal will be discussed later this year by the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee that negotiated the Convention.

  Tropical Diseases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with pharmaceutical companies on the financing of research to combat leishmaniasis and other sand-fly related diseases affecting poor people who sleep close to their cattle. [104422]

  Clare Short
  I have had no discussions with pharmaceutical companies on the financing of research to combat leishmaniasis or other sand-fly related diseases. We support research through the World Health Organisation's Tropical Disease Research Programme, which places great emphasis on forming partnerships with pharmaceutical companies to facilitate future drug development. Current treatment for leishmaniasis involves repeated injections, and is not effective in all cases. No oral treatment is currently available, although trials are underway.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research reports she has received directed to the spread of malaria among people living in highland areas and its relationship with climate change; and if she will make a statement. [104664]

  Clare Short
  We are concerned at the potential spread of malaria into tropical highlands. Current scientific evidence is far from unanimous on the relationship with climate change. We are working with research institutes and ministries of health in affected countries to develop reliable systems for epidemic prediction, detection and response.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104025]

  Dr. Reid
  The following figures illustrate the number of staff in the core Scottish Office departments at 1 April 1999.

  Number of staff at 1 April 1999

  Full-time equivalent

  Age band

  Men

  Women

  All staff

  16–19

  28.0

  30.0

  58.0

  20–24

  122.0

  111.6

  233.6

  25–29

  202.0

  232.5

  434.5

  30–34

  258.8

  244.2

  503.0

  35–39

  266.6

  261.1

  527.7

  40–44

  310.7

  261.8

  572.5

  45–19

  319.0

  235.3

  554.3

  50 or over

  512.7

  310.2

  822.9

  Total

  2,019.8

  1,686.7

  3,706.5

  There are no comparable figures available for April 1979. However, some information may be found in Civil Service Statistics which is published annually and is available in the Library.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department since 8 March 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104498]

  Dr. Reid
  Those assets owned by The Scottish Office and its Executive Agencies listed in the National Asset Register which have been sold between 8 March 1999 to 30 June 1999 are as follows, together with the money realised:

  Proceeds realised £

  The Scottish Office core fixed assets

  Highland and Lowland Estates:

  Lowland Estate

  111,650

  Highland Estate

  14,505

  Furniture and Fittings

  935

  IT Systems

  30

  Vehicles

  42,929

  Executive Agencies of The Scottish Office

  Scottish Prison Service

  Vehicles

  17,974

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Vehicles

  6,109

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Plant and Machinery

  1,765

  Fisheries Research Services

  Vehicles

  3,478

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  IT Systems

  25

  Total

  199,400

  From 1 July 1999, The Scotland Office has not sold any assets.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to create an Equality Unit within the Northern Ireland Office to co-ordinate the work relating to equality schemes of United Kingdom departments and other bodies designated by the Secretary of State under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [103814]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Human Rights Unit in the Northern Ireland Office advises the Secretary of State on all issues relating to equality schemes for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

  The Equality Commission is required by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to produce statutory guidelines on equality schemes (subject to approval by the Secretary of State) and these guidelines will be given to all public authorities designated under section 75. United Kingdom Government Departments and other bodies designated by the Secretary of State under section 75 will submit their equality schemes to the Commission for approval. The Secretary of State is responsible for approving public authority equality schemes which have been referred to him by the Equality Commission. The Commission cannot refer the equality schemes of United Kingdom Government Departments to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision has been made within the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that it, and the voluntary and community sectors with which it works, have been provided with sufficient resources to ensure that they are able to comply with the statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity. [103815]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No additional financial resources have been provided to ensure that the Northern Ireland Office and the voluntary and community sectors with whom it works are able to comply with the statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity. However the Government believes that these public authorities have sufficient resources to ensure that they are able to comply with the statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reasons why the report of the Criminal Justice Review established under the terms of the Good Friday agreement has not yet been published; and when he expects it to be published. [103816]

  Mr. Ingram
  The extended consultation process which the Review Group engaged in, together with the range and complexity of the issues which the Group was invited to address, meant that the analytical phase of their work began later and has taken longer than the Group expected. I understand, however, that the report is now at an advanced stage of preparation and that it is hoped to publish it as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister what subjects have been referred to the Performance and Innovation Unit. [104591]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on 10 December 1998,Official Report, columns 277–78W; to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 21 October 1999, Official Report,column 630W; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 24 November 1999, Official Report, column 162W.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the remit of the Performance and Innovation Unit. [104592]

  The Prime Minister
  The remit of the Performance and Innovation Unit is to improve the capacity of Government to identify and address strategic, cross-cutting issues and promote innovation in the development of policy and in the delivery of the Government's objectives.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he expects the Performance and Innovation Unit to report on post offices; [104593]

  (2) what is the membership and remit of the Performance and Innovation Unit study of post offices. [104594]

  The Prime Minister
  As I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 630W, I expect the Performance and Innovation Unit's work on the Post Office network to be completed this spring.

  The Performance and Innovation Unit project team is drawn from both inside and outside Government, to ensure new thinking and a wide range of experience is brought to bear on the issues. The remit of the project is to identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities, consider how the Post Office network can best contribute to the Government's objectives in the future and the process to formulate objectives for the Post Office.

  Fundamental Rights Draft Charter
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish documents sent to the European Union Fundamental Rights Charter Drafting Body; when he expects the Charter Drafting Body to consider a draft; and how the Government will consult(a) Parliament and (b) the public on this draft. [105126]

  The Prime Minister
  The Charter drafting process is designed to be transparent. The Charter website, which will contain the various working documents, can be reached through http://ue.eu.int. Parliament will also have access to all the papers through its two delegates. In addition, the meetings of the Charter drafting body are televised.

  Drafting will probably begin after the next plenary on 1–2 February, which will be the first opportunity for a general discussion of the substance.
  267W
  The Government have already written to the Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees about the process and will continue to liaise closely with Parliament. The Government will also continue to consult NGOs and other independent organisations and individuals through a combination of meetings and correspondence.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne. [104809]

  The Prime Minister
  Planning for The Queen's Golden Jubilee is at a very early stage. A programme of celebrations will be announced in due course.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on official entertaining at 10 Downing Street in the periods(a) 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998 and (b) 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. [104885]

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost to my office of official hospitality, including official entertainment, at 10 Downing Street and Chequers in 1997–98 and 1998–99 was as follows:

  1997–98: £43,777

  1998–99: £53,639

  This compares with total expenditure on entertainment at 10 Downing Street during 1996–97 of £50,126.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of Syria on the construction of the Ilisu Dam. [105453]

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no discussion with the President of Syria on the construction of the Ilisu Dam.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the construction of the Ilisu Dam on the Kurdish People. [105451]

  The Prime Minister
  A report, "Stakeholders' Attitudes to Involuntary Resettlement in the Context of the Ilisu Dam Project in Turkey" has been prepared by an independent social development expert following a visit to the region to ascertain the views of the local population likely to be affected by the dam. Copies of this report are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister which EU states have joined with the UK Government in providing financial support for the construction of the Ilisu Dam. [105450]

  The Prime Minister
  No financial support has yet been provided by any EU state for the construction of the Ilisu Dam.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the Heads of Government of the EU at Helsinki on the future of the Ilisu Dam. [105452]

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no discussion with the Heads of Government of the EU on the future of the Ilisu Dam.
  268W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the Turkish Prime Minister at the Helsinki Summit concerning the construction of the Ilisu Dam; and if he will make a statement. [105477]

  The Prime Minister
  I have had no discussion with the Turkish Prime Minister on the construction of the Ilisu Dam.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compliance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with the Ministerial Code in relation to his shares declared in the Register of Members' Interests. [105288]

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance to Ministers on the handling of financial interests is set out in section 9 of the Ministerial Code.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Support Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the prospectus for the new youth support service. [105352]

  Mr. Wicks
  We shall be publishing shortly a document to announce the key functions that we expect the new youth support service to perform. We expect to publish a specification for tender for the new service in March.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with other Government Departments regarding continuity of funding for services to be provided under the proposed arrangements for the combined Youth Support Service. [104696]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are working closely with other Government departments, to identify the contributions which their existing services will make to the Youth Support Service. This includes the funding which will be available. An inter-departmental steering group has been set up to assist in this process, which has met a number of times. Funding for the Youth Support Service will be settled as part of the Government's Year 2000 spending review.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each regional development agency(a) the amounts granted and (b) the companies facing closure or large-scale redundancies to which the sums have been allocated under the rapid response scheme. [104811]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is contained in the following table. Where no money has been awarded in a particular region this is because no firm proposals have been received.
  269W

  Rapid Response Fund: companies supported since 1998–99

  RDA

  Company/ies

  Amount granted £

  One North East

  Electrolux

  51,000

  Fujitsu

  415,000

  Groves Cranes

  250,000

  Onwa

  153,000

  R.J.B. Ellington

  58,650

  Siemens

  300,000

  Vaux

  140,000

  Wilkinson Sword

  120,000

  Total

  1,487,650

  Advantage West Midlands

  Lear, Alvis, Abbey Textiles, Alstrom, Massey Ferguson and AP Leamington (all Coventry and Warwickshire)

  75,000

  IMI Refineries Walsall

  10,000

  Michelin

  Bid to be received

  Rover

  740,000

  Staff Ceramics—4 firms

  268,000

  Telford—4 firms

  150,000

  East of England Development

  Agency

  Hazelwood Foods

  50,000

  United Distillers Vintners

  61,000

  Total

  111,000

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Alstom Turbines

  57,000

  Bryan Donkin Foundry

  23,444

  RJB Calberton/Harworth

  89,500

  Ladybird and Jarvis Porter

  44,985

  Laporte Industries

  56,000

  Midland Mining Annesley Bentinck

  177,750

  Total

  448,579

  South West of England Development Agency

  Hoechst Trespephan

  125,250

  Link Group

  48,000

  Rover Group (Swindon)

  16,764

  Strachen Henshaw

  148,100

  Total

  338,114

  London Development Partnership

  —

  0

  North West Development Agency

  —

  0

  South East of England Development Agency

  —

  0

  Yorkshire Forward2

  —

  0

  Grand total

  3,528,343

  TBC

  1 Up to £170,000 if needed

  School Attendance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support has been given to schools to reduce the level of unauthorised absences. [104119]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our objective is to reduce the learning time lost due to truancy and exclusion by one third by year 2002. Over three years we are investing £500 million across England on projects tackling truancy and school exclusion, and other initiatives to get children back into school and learning. Projects supported include the purchasing of electronic equipment to monitor attendance, additional staff to chase-up truants, and reward schemes for acknowledging regular attendance. We are also encouraging schools to set up pupil mentoring schemes and to develop home-school liaison through the implementation of home-school agreements. All of these activities are designed to help schools reduce unauthorised absence.

  On 1 November 1999 we issued our strategy document "Tackling Truancy Together" which sets out our further proposals for helping to reduce unauthorised absence from school. We are currently considering the many responses we received to the proposals in that document, and will make an announcement soon on what further action we want to take to help reduce unauthorised absence from school.

  Minster College, Isle of Sheppey
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the withdrawal by Kent County Council of match funding from the Single Regeneration Budget funded Inclusion Unit at Minster College on the Isle of Sheppey. [105200]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I understand that discussions are continuing between Kent Local Education Authority and Minster College about the future of the Inclusion Unit at the School. I have asked my officials to keep in touch with the discussions and will write to you as soon as possible with further details.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the changes to the Standard Fund Grant 19 and their impact on match funding for the Single Regeneration Budget funded Inclusion Unit at Minster College on the Isle of Sheppey. [105201]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Kent Local Education Authority's Standards Fund Grant 19 allocation for secondary schools and LEA initiatives has been increased from £950,000 in 1999–2000 to £2.8 million for 2000–01. Nearly £2.2 million of the grant must be devolved directly to Kent secondary schools and colleges to help combat truancy and exclusions. Kent are consulting on how the funds will be distributed. I understand that discussions are continuing between Kent Local Education Authority and Minster College about the future of their Inclusion Unit. I have asked my officials to keep in touch with the discussions and will write to you as soon as possible with further details.
  271W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to secure the future of the Inclusion Unit at Minster College on the Isle of Sheppey. [105202]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I understand that discussions are continuing between Kent Local Education Authority and Minster College about the future of the Inclusion Unit at the school. I have asked my officials to keep in touch with the discussions and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible with further details.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost to English local education authorities of maintaining sixth forms in schools in the last year for which figures are available. [105351]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Standard Spending Assessment mechanism includes an unhypothecated element for post-16 education. Information on the cost to local education authorities of maintaining sixth forms in schools is not collected.

  New Deal (Monitoring)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what methods are used to monitor the quality of training services provided under the New Deal by private sector companies. [104103]

  Ms Jowell
  In line with our continuing commitment for ensuring quality, the Employment Service has worked in partnership with the Training Standards Council (TSC) to develop a framework for the assessment of the quality of New Deal training provision. By March 2002, every New Deal Unit of Delivery will have been inspected by the Council. This framework is the basis for each New Deal partnership to carry out an annual self assessment. These inspections and self-assessments cover the quality of all training provision including that delivered by the private sector.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding he will make available to enable schools and colleges to improve facilities for people with disabilities. [104272]

  Ms Hodge
  We have significantly increased the funding available under the Schools Access Initiative to enable local education authorities to improve access to mainstream schools and the curriculum for pupils with disabilities. We recently announced that £30 million will be available in the 2000–01 financial year. This is a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year's level of funding and 200 per cent. increase on funds available in 1996–97. We expect to allocate £100 million for access schemes in the three years to 2002.

  In the Further Education sector the Further Education Funding Council's (FEFC) funding methodology allows for additional units of funding, to be allocated to support provision for students with disabilities, or learning difficulties. This is used to fund a range of support for individual students, including care assistants and signers. In addition, £12 million capital funding has been allocated
  272W
  over three years (1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02) specifically to improve access and facilities for students with learning difficulties and or disabilities. Capital projects supported under the general widening participation and skills agenda will also have the potential to improve access for disabled students. Responsibility for funding of further education will pass to the Learning and Skills Council from April 2001 and a consultation document on the new Council's funding arrangements will be issued early in 2000.

  Improving access and facilities for disabled people in education was a key feature of the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, who published their report "From Exclusion to Inclusion" in December 1999. We will be introducing legislation later this session to address its recommendations for education and consider longer term costs as part of the Year 2000 Spending Review.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the TUPE regulations will apply to staff in the Careers Service as a result of the creation of the new combined arrangements for the Youth Support Service. [104697]

  Mr. Wicks
  Decisions have yet to be taken about the structure of the Youth Support Service and how Careers Service companies will be affected. It is therefore too early to consider the extent to which TUPE regulations will apply to Careers Service staff. We indicated in the White Paper "Learning to Succeed" that the best of the Careers Service companies will play a major role in the new Service together with a range of other local partners. We have established a Transitional Issues Group with Careers Service National Association (CSNA) that will be considering the implications for Careers Service companies and providing them with guidance.

  School Headships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school headships in each London Borough are held by(a) men and (b) women from an ethnic minority background. [104796]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy that metropolitan boroughs eligible for EU Objective One status on account of their poverty and social deprivation do not receive per pupil education standard spending assessment allocations below the national average. [104838]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government announced in November 1998 a three year review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs. While the review is taking place there will be no further changes to the method of distributing funding.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Office for National Statistics with regard to the production of an assessment of each of the New Deal programmes; and if he will make a statement. [102101]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Officials from both the Department for Education and Employment and the Office for National Statistics liaise regularly to discuss and analyse the impact that New Deal programmes have had on unemployment figures and other economic indicators published by the Office for National Statistics. Evaluation is carried out independently by outside contractors and the Department's internal analysis and monitoring uses Government Statistical Service figures and internal data.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many letters have been sent to lone parents inviting them to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents. [102103]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: From the national introduction of the New Deal for Lone Parents on 26 October 1998, to the end of October 1999, initial invitation letters were sent to 434,570 lone parents.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his latest assessment of substitution, dead-weight and displacement in each of the New Deal schemes. [102107]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: There is a comprehensive evaluation programme in place for all elements of New Deal. The article "New Deal for the young unemployed: monitoring and evaluation", published in Labour Market Trends in November 1998, sets out a framework which is broadly common across New Deal. We are committed to publishing the final reports of all these evaluations.

  New Deal is a long term initiative, still in its early days. Consequently, most evaluation is also still in progress and is yet to report. However, Employment Service Research report ESR33, published in December 1999 and available in the Library, provides an independent assessment, by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), of the effects of the New Deal for Young People in its first year. This provides encouraging evidence of the early impact of the New Deal. On deadweight it found that
  "Approximately 50 per cent. of individuals leaving unemployment via the NDYP would have done so in absence of the programme".
  and that this
  "is broadly in line with estimates from other active labour market programmes".
  On substitution and displacement it found that
  "NDYP does not appear to have had any significant effect on unemployment of others than the client group so far".

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons have left their New Deal scheme to be placed on(a) Incapacity Benefit, (b) Income Support, (c) Jobseeker's Allowance and (d) any other benefit. [102109]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Our management information on those who leave New Deal to claim benefit is only broken down to those who return
  274W
  to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) and those who claimed another benefit. In the period ending October 1999, of the 251,600 people who left the New Deal for Young People; 23,680 claimed JSA and 30,060 claimed another benefit.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were (i) the total number of contracts covered by his answer of 23 July 1999,Official Report, columns 691–92W, (ii) the number and total value of those contracts that have been put out to competitive tender, (iii) the number and total value of those contracts that have not been put out to competitive tender and (iv) the names of all companies with which contracts not put out to competitive tender have been concluded. [99116]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: There were 65 commercial contracts relating to the previous answer. 26 contracts, at a total value of £4.4 million were put out to competitive tender, and 39 contracts at a value of £709,000 were not put out to competitive tender. The remaining expenditure on consultants and advisers were for individuals and organisations working with the Department on a non-commercial basis. Where commercial contracts were not put out to competitive tender the contracts relate to the organisations or individuals listed, engaged due to their known specialist expertise. Some may have more than one contract.

  Cheshire Education Services

  C. & P. Partnership

  Wilfred Agnew

  Barry Allsop

  Norman Barlow

  Richard Brake

  Terry Browne

  Margaret Caister

  Ian Clelland

  Professor Bernard Crick

  Joan Farrelly

  Mike Fielding

  Pamela Francis

  Roger Frost

  Arthur Giles

  George Gill OBE

  Ann Gittins

  Joan Greenfield

  Bill Greenwood

  Malcolm Hewitt

  Peter Highfield

  Penny Holden

  Pat Ivin

  Jane Jinks

  Diane Kelly

  Dee Kushlick-Williams

  Professor Hugh Lawlor

  Hilary MacDonald

  Helen McMaster

  Ivan McNally

  Denis Mongon

  Judith Morris

  Ian Pollard

  Merlin Price

  Alan Puckey

  Peter Rabbett

  Ian Shelton

  Monica Timmis

  Sir Anthony Tippet

  275W

  Gail Treml

  Tony Webster

  Jeff White

  Sylvia Wright

CABINET OFFICE

  On-line Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she intends to publish information on the target set by the Prime Minister to deliver 25 per cent. of Government services electronically. [105516]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  A report on progress by Departments and their key agencies was published recently. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and it was published on the website www.citu.gov.uk/25percent.menu.htm. The report contains information supplied by Departments on a sample of key dealings between the citizen and business and Government.

DEFENCE

  Live Munitions Testing
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment was made by his Department of the impact on fishing activity prior to the testing of live cluster bombs in Luce Bay; [104356]

  (2) what plans he has to use live munitions in future trials in (a) Luce Bay and (b) elsewhere around the Scottish coast; [104353]

  (3) for what reason live cluster bombs were used in recent trials at Luce Bay, Wigtownshire; [104354]

  (4) what assessment was made by his Department of the prospects for recovery of bombs, prior to the testing of live cluster bombs in Luce Bay; and if he will make a statement. [104355]

  Mr. Spellar
  The trials at Luce Bay that took place over Easter last year were an urgent operational requirement in direct support of the UK participation in the NATO action in Kosovo. Live variants of the cluster bomb were used because there were insufficient inert bombs available to complete the trials within the required timescale. Although these weapons contained live bomblets, they were configured in such a manner as not to deploy the bomblets in flight.

  Before any trial is approved a detailed series of risk assessments and defined controlled operating procedures are required. In addition, prior to the Luce Bay trial options for the recovery, disposal and containment of the bombs were all considered. The final decision to contain the bombs on the seabed was made once the trial has been completed and the situation assessed. The impact area within the licensed danger area of the Luce Bay range was selected on the basis that no significant fishing activity was regularly carried out in that area. The exact location was selected using the experience and judgment of the West Freugh Range and Ground Control Officers, who have between them more than 38 years of experience of monitoring all activities which emanate from the range.
  276W
  In common with other test and evaluation ranges in the UK the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's Luce Bay range is formally licensed for trials involving the use of live ordnance, and operates in accordance with the local byelaws governing its use. Whilst the majority of the trials conducted in the Luce Bay area and elsewhere around the Scottish coast are achieved wherever possible using inert material, there will inevitably be requirements in the future for trials using live ordnance to support the effectiveness of the United Kingdom armed services, sometimes at short notice. All trials, whether using live or inert weapons are subject to the same stringent controls and procedures to ensure the safe operation of all such activities.

  Service Personnel (Health)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in each of the three armed services are currently classified as category P7R, unfit for operational duty. [104924]

  Mr. Spellar
  The medical category P7, with or without the "R" suffix, denotes fitness for specific types of light duties in the Royal Navy or Army. The RAF equivalent is known as Medical Employment Standard (MES) Z 5 (Temp). The "R" suffix with P7 may be used at the discretion of medical officers as an indication that the patient is expected to return to full fitness within a maximum period of up to 18 months.

  The three Services maintain statistics on medical downgrading in slightly different ways to reflect their requirements. P7R figures, where available, for each of the Services as at 12 January 2000 are as follows:

  Royal Navy
  Medical Category P7R—1,535 (Ratings only) Figures for Officers not held centrally.

  Army
  Medical Category P7–2,019 (Officers and other ranks).

  Note:
  It is not possible to ascertain the number within this category that may also have been designated "R" as this information is not recorded centrally.

  RAF
  Medical Category MES Z 5(Temp)—1,786 Officers and other ranks)

  Wilkinson Sword of Peace
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the units of the armed services that have been awarded the Wilkinson Sword of Peace in each year since its inception, indicating the aspect of community relations recognised in the award. [105457]

  Mr. Spellar
  Messrs Wilkinson Sword Ltd. presents an annual Sword of Peace to a unit or establishment of each Service which is judged to have made the most valuable contribution towards establishing good and friendly relations with the inhabitants of any community at home or overseas, over and above the unit's normal role and duty.

  A list of the single-Service Units to which the Wilkinson Sword of Peace has been awarded since 1992, along with the citation for the last two years, is detailed in Table 1. A comprehensive list of all winners of the

  277W
  Wilkinson Sword of Peace since its inception in 1966, and the associated citation, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition to the Single-Service awards, Messrs Wilkinson Sword Ltd. has, since 1994, presented an annual award (when a citation is deemed worthy of recognition) to the most deserving Joint Service unit or ad hoc grouping formed for any specific operation. A list of the four winners to date is given in Table 2, with a brief citation for the last two years.

  Table 1: Wilkinson Sword of Peace [Navy)

  Year

  Unit/Establishment

  Location

  1992

  MCM 1 Squadron

  Baltic States

  1993

  HMS London

  Durres and Albania

  1994

  HMS Fearless

  Guyana

  1995

  HMS Invincible,

  Various

  HMS Illustrious

  1996

  Inshore Training Squadron Russia and Spain

  1997

  819 Naval Air Squadron

  RNAS Prestwick

  1998

  Task Group 326.02 (Op Tellar)

  Nicaragua and Honduras

  Citations
  1997: 819 Naval Air Squadron
  For their close association and efforts in the local community around RNAS Prestwick.
  1998: Task Group 326.02 (Op Tellar)
  To all units within Task Group 326.02 (Op Tellar) for their contribution to the humanitarian assistance to Nicaragua and Honduras in the wake of Hurricane Mitch.

  Wilkinson Sword of Peace (Army)

  Year

  Unit/Establishment

  Location

  1992

  7 Sig Reg

  Albania

  1 Cheshire Bn Gp

  Bosnia

  1993

  21 Engr Regt

  Bosnia

  1994

  1 KOBR

  NI-Londonderry

  1995

  Gurkha Welfare Scheme

  Nepal

  1996

  36 Engr Regt

  Bosnia/UK

  1 RMP

  Bosnia/Germany

  1997

  HCR

  Bosnia/UK

  1998

  8 R Irish

  NI-Tyrone

  Citations
  1997: Household Cavalry Regiment
  Awarded for the work of two squadrons of the Household Cavalry Regiment in returning the lives of members of the severely damaged community of Banja Luka to conditions approaching normality, in which the seeds of long-standing peace might grow.
  1998:8th (Co Armagh and Co Tyrone) Battalion Royal Irish Regiment
  The Battalion has succeeded in making a dynamic and imaginative contribution to the community of Armagh, against the backcloth of unprecedented political momentum and a difficult operational environment.

  Wilkinson Sword of Peace (Royal Air Force)

  Year

  Unit/Establishment

  Location

  1992

  RAF Lyneham

  UN Operations overseas

  1993

  RAF Kinloss

  Local community

  1994

  RAF Manston

  Local community

  1995

  RAF Laarbruch

  Bosnia, Romania and Holland

  1996

  RAF Stornoway

  Local community

  278W

  Wilkinson Sword of Peace (Royal Air Force)

  Year

  Unit/Establishment

  Location

  1997

  Numbers 1 and 34 Squadrons, RAF Regiment

  Bosnia

  1998

  RAF Aldergrove

  Northern Ireland

  Citations
  1997: Numbers 1 and 34 Squadrons of the RAF Regiment
  For their part in Peace Support Operations as part of the multi-national peace Stabilisation Force at Banja Luka, Bosnia Herzegovina
  1998: RAF Aldergrove
  In recognition of the Station's response to the Omagh tragedy, and the wider humanitarian and fund-raising activities carried out throughout the year.

  Table 2: Wilkinson Sword of Peace (Special)

  Year

  Unit/Establishment

  Location

  1994

  Op Gabriel (5AB Bde)

  Rwanda

  1995

  Op Chantress (Britlogbat, tri-Svc)

  Angola

  1996

  Not awarded

  —

  1997

  MCTC

  UK

  1998

  BMATT South Africa

  South Africa

  Citations
  1997: Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester
  Members of staff, SUS and young offenders have provided a valuable contribution to the local community, and to charitable organisations, out of all proportion to the manpower and time available to them.
  1998: The British Military Advisory and Training Team (South Africa)
  BMATT has played a crucial and influential role in harmonising the extremely difficult integration of former adversaries into a cohesive defence force.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the means by which consultation takes place prior to announcement of the annual Wilkinson Sword of Peace awards and (b) his Department's inputs in nomination and selection. [105458]

  Mr. Spellar
  Entries for the Wilkinson Sword of Peace competitions are invited annually through Defence Council Instructions, which also detail the eligibility criteria. The selection of the most deserving single-Service unit is done by an adjudicating committee, under the chairmanship of the relevant Service Principal Personnel Officer. The selection of the most deserving tri-Service unit, for the award of the Wilkinson Sword of Peace (Special), is done by an adjudicating committee formed of the three Principal Personnel Officers, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel).

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much depleted uranium has been authorised for use by his Department in each of the last three years. [104265]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK has not fired DU ammunition during the course of any of the operations it has undertaken over the last three years.
  279W
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps will be taken to ensure that United States Forces using the Ministry of Defence range at Cape Wrath later this year do not use depleted uranium shells. [104877]

  Mr. Spellar
  Any nation using the ranges at Cape Wrath must abide by our Standard Operating Regulations. These regulations preclude the use of depleted uranium shells.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium shells have been used by British forces during live-firing exercises at the range at Cape Wrath. [104878]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium shells have not been used at Cape Wrath by British forces.

  Salisbury Plain
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on whose authority permission is given to non-military personnel to have access to his Department's land on Salisbury Plain; and what criteria are used. [104392]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My Department has a presumption in favour of access wherever this is consistent with military activities, environmental and conservation considerations, the health and safety of the public and the interests of our tenants. Formal applications to use Ministry of Defence land are considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure that none of the above constraints are compromised. All applications for the use of Salisbury Plain are vetted by the Commandant Army Training Estate Salisbury Plain's staff to ensure that live firing, manoeuvre or general military training is not taking place. The primary criterion when assessing access for non-military personnel onto the military estate is their personal safety.

  MOD Hospital Units
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total annual cost of operating Ministry of Defence hospital units in each of the last 10 years. [104414]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit (MDHU) was opened on 1 April 1995. For the three financial years 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 the total annual operating costs for MDHUs are as set out. These costs represent, in the main, pay and allowances for military personnel and support staff.

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  16.936

  1997–98

  18.185

  1998–99

  18.500

  Costs are not available for the year 1995–96.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual cost in each of the last two years, of running his Department's hospital unit in Germany; [104412]
  280W
  (2) how many service personnel in Germany have been treated in facilities other than MOD medical services in each of the last two years; and what was the cost of this treatment. [104415]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the market testing of the health function in Germany, the provision of all secondary health care for both the Army and the RAF is provided under contract with five designated German provider hospitals. There are no MDHUs in Germany. The budget set aside to meet these costs was £3O.O28M (DM65.953m @ £=DM 2.1958) in 1997–98 and £23.853M (DM65.245m @ £=DM2.7353) in 1998–99. The number of cases treated in each of these years was 27,831 and 40,539 at a cost of £30.668M (DM67.341m) and £29.171M (DM79.791m) respectively.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expenditure was on Ministry of Defence hospital units in each of the last two years. [104417]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amounts paid to MDHU host NHS Trusts for the treatment of military personnel in each of the last two years are as follows. The sums shown are the net payment, taking into account the abatement of charges for the contribution of military clinical staff serving in the MDHU to the treatment of Service patients.

  1997–98: £6.505 million

  1998–99: £7.379 million

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patients have been transferred from Ministry of Defence hospital units to the Royal Hospital Haslar in each of the last two years; for what reasons; and at what cost to his Department. [104409]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information is not routinely collected on tertiary transfers to the Royal Hospital Haslar. Any patients whose care might need to be transferred to another consultant outside a Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit would normally be referred to other local or regional NHS hospitals with the specialist units required.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are awaiting(a) initial hospital appointments and (b) consultant appointments at Ministry of Defence hospital units; how many of them have been waiting for more than six months; and what assessment he has made of the cost implications of delays. [104410]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid annually to the NHS to cover NHS treatment in lieu of Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit treatment. [104831]

  Mr. Spellar
  Nil. Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to NHS hospital treatment on the same basis as civilians if appropriate military provision is not available. This understanding pre-dates the creation of MDHUs.

  Indonesian Service Personnel (Training)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made to the Government in respect of training for Indonesian service
  281W
  personnel within the United Kingdom over the past 12 months; and how many are currently in training in the UK. [104418]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of representations have been made to the Government in respect of training for Indonesian service personnel within the United Kingdom over the past 12 months. There are currently no Indonesian military personnel training in the UK at military training establishments or in non-military educational establishments at HMG's expense.

  British Troops (Kosovo)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was first informed of problems in communications between British ground forces in Kosovo; what steps he took; and if he will make a statement. [104407]

  Mr. Spellar
  The limitations of the CLANSMAN tactical radio system are well understood and it is due to replaced by the BOWMAN system. MOD reacted swiftly to concern regarding the capability of CLANSMAN on operations in Kosovo. Two programmes were run under Urgent Operational Requirement procedures. Project POLYGON provided a commercial handheld radio system for the battalion operating in the Pristina area and entered service in September 1999. Project POLYGON PLUS will shortly extend this commercial system, giving all UK troops in theatre access to the protected tactical system.

  Married Quarters, Colchester
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters are provided at the Colchester Garrison; how many are currently occupied by non-service personnel; and how many are empty. [104583]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The total number of married quarters in Colchester Garrison is 1,361. There are 55 currently occupied by non-service personnel. These are: four housing MOD police/MOD civilian families; 36 leased to Colne Housing and 14 occupied by irregular occupants ie estranged service spouses or ex-service personnel. There are currently 164 empty properties awaiting either modernisation or the arrival of incoming service families.

  Kirkcudbright Test Range
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting between representatives from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the environmental monitoring programme of the test-firing of depleted uranium shells at the Kirkcudbright test range, held on 29 November 1999. [104702]

  Mr. Spellar
  The meeting on 29 November 1999 was hosted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency at East Kilbride. No formal minutes of the meeting were produced. Only working notes recording actions were made for future reference.

  Future Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) future and (b) existing requirements for air-to-air refuelling of helicopters there are; and to what extent that requirement has been included in the European Staff Requirement against which the Future Transport Aircraft requirement is being assessed. [104648]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: The MOD is considering a possible need to enable part of the future support helicopter fleet to conduct air-to-air refuelling operations. Final decisions to procure such a capability have yet to be taken.

  The European Staff Requirement for the Future Large Aircraft includes an essential requirement for the aircraft to be capable of being re-roled as an air-to-air refuelling tanker, with a desirable requirement for it to be capable of refuelling helicopters.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason there has been a delay in a decision on the selection of the Future Transport Aircraft. [104647]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: We are continuing to assess the proposals for the Future Transport Aircraft. A full technical and commercial assessment is being carried out, focusing on value for money and taking account of all relevant factors such as aircraft performance, cost, risk and industrial factors. We hope to be in a position to make a decision early this year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Defence Procurement Agency will adopt the practices of smart procurement in relation to the Future Transport Aircraft requirement; [105171]

  (2) what procurement practices the Defence Procurement Agency has adopted with regard to the Future Transport Aircraft selection; [105174]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the requirements for airlift and air portability being used by his Department in its assessment of the Future Transport Aircraft contenders with those in the European Staff Requirement. [105173]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Commitments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current level of Army commitments. [104791]

  Mr. Spellar
  Some 30 per cent. of the trained Army is currently committed to operations, which is down from a peak of 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign. Once the agreed force reductions in Bosnia have been implemented in full, this figure should fall to 28 per cent.

  Russia (Military Relations)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military relations with Russia. [105026]

  Mr. Hoon
  Engaging Russia in a constructive bilateral defence relationship is a high priority for the Government. Russia remains the highest priority in our "Outreach"
  283W
  programme of defence assistance to central and eastern Europe countries. We wish to continue to develop an effective defence relationship with Russia and made good progress towards that objective in 1997 and 1998. Last year, however, the Russians curtailed co-operative activities as a sign of their opposition to UK/US action in Iraq and NATO action in Kosovo.

  Aircraft Procurement
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings the Minister for Defence Procurement has had with Airbus to discuss the A400M; and what was discussed. [105033]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement had planned to visit Airbus in Toulouse on 12 January but Parliamentary commitments meant she was unable to go. She hopes to rearrange the visit shortly.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the benefits of defence procurement practices used by Airbus Military Company. [105172]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings, and on what dates, the Minister for Defence Procurement has had with Boeing to discuss the C-17 transport aircraft. [105035]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement met officials from Boeing on 11 January to discuss a range of issues, including the C-17 transport aircraft.

  Service Personnel (Orthopaedic Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and for what reason the £1.5 million allocated across all three services to reduce secondary care agency orthopaedic waiting lists for those on operational duties was withdrawn as part of his Department's annual efficiency savings. [104923]

  Mr. Spellar
  Funding to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists in the Defence Secondary Care Agency was not removed as part of my Department's efficiency programme as no funds had been allocated for this purpose in 1999–2000. At the beginning of the financial year consideration was given to the possibility of identifying funding to reduce waiting lists, primarily but not exclusively, for orthopaedic treatment. However, this did not prove to be practical, although some additional physiotherapy, provided through a separate initiative, is likely to have affected the numbers on waiting lists overall. The possibility of pursuing action to reduce orthopaedic waiting lists in the next financial year is currently under consideration.

  Service Uniforms
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he will use in reaching a decision to revise guidelines on the wearing of service uniforms in public. [104800]
  284W
  Mr. Spellar
  We have no immediate plans to revise the guidelines on the wearing of service uniforms in public although they are kept under review. The current guidelines have been framed to give local commanders the flexibility to interpret the rules to cater for any specific considerations in their immediate area.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what unforeseen costs have arisen in connection with the refurbishment of forces' married quarters; what impact this will have on the timing of the refurbishment programme; and what additional budgetary provision is being made available to the Defence Housing Executive to meet the shortfall. [104799]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the time of the sale to Annington Homes in 1996 it was assessed that the cost of upgrading the bulk of the married quarters estate in mainland UK would be about £470 million and that work would be completed over a seven year period, that is by November 2003. A subsequent 100 per cent. stock condition survey established that additional work required, including structural and utilities improvements to houses, would cost an additional £112 million. This has necessitated extending the completion of the upgrade programme to 2005 on current expenditure plans with continued funding.

  Memorandum of Understanding (USA)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on policy with regard to the Memorandum of Understanding on mutual communications support between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, signed at Washington on 22 and 28 November 1988. [100345]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: In recognition of the importance of communications interoperability in naval operations and the benefits of providing mutual communications support, the Royal Navy and the United States Navy have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding. This sets out the procedures and provisions for mutual communications support including message receipt, handling relay, reformatting, delivery, transmission or retransmission and any related supplies and services, the provision of which was not for the direct and primary benefit of the Navy providing the support.

  Army Foundation College
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public subsidy has been offered to develop the site of the new Army Foundation College. [102577]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am not yet in a position to examine the details of individual bids for the development of the new Army Foundation College.

  UK Commitments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) United Kingdom defence commitments and (b) the cost of United Kingdom commitments. [103193]
  285W
  Mr. Hoon
  A full assessment of UK defence commitments was undertaken during the Strategic Defence Review Cm. 3999. Operational deployments for the year 1998–99 are set out in the MOD'S Performance Report 1998–99 Cm. 4520 published in December 1999. In practice, the bulk of defence spending contributes to providing the defence capability needed to meet the missions and commitments set out.

  Chinook
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidents of Uncommanded Flying Control Movements in Chinook helicopters since 1994 in which subsequent inspections reported no fault found. [103639]

  Mr. Spellar
  There were two incidents of Uncommanded Flying Control Movements in Chinook helicopters since 1994 in which subsequent inspections reported no fault found:

  18 August 1995—aircraft experienced a 12° nose down pitch.

  23 December 1997—aircraft suffered vertical bounce on the ground after landing.

  Where an investigation has not pinpointed a fault, the components most likely to have caused the fault may be changed and the aircraft subsequently flight tested to confirm its correct function. In both of the occurrences listed the pilots were able to counteract the UFCM and control of the aircraft was not lost.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 501W, if he will make a statement on the purpose of his Department's financial contribution to BBC World Service Monitoring, indicating those votes and subheads which cover these funds. [105076]

  Mr. Hain
  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 FCO and other parts of Government. The FCO's financial contribution (40 per cent.) to BBC Monitoring's core operation reflects this. The contribution is made from Class VII, Vote 1, Section A2.

HEALTH

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the Health Pay Review bodies. [105835]

  Mr. Milburn
  I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the reports of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) and the Review Body on Nursing staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB), which are published today. I understand that a similar announcement is being made by the First Minister and the Minister for Health and Community Care in Scotland. Copies of the reports are 286W
  available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the chairmen and members of both Review Bodies for their hard work.

  Nurses are to receive another big real terms increase in pay and, for the second year in succession, the award is being paid in full, with no staging. The NPRB have recommended an across the board increase of 3.4 per cent. for nurses, midwives and health visitors with bigger targeted increases for specific groups. About 60,000 Grade E nurses on the scale maximum will get a total increase of 7.8 per cent., worth an extra £1,390 a year, to improve career progression and reward skill acquisition and experience. Another 5,500 enrolled and auxiliary nurses in Grade C will receive total increases of 7 per cent., worth an extra £975 a year. London allowances, stand-by and on-call allowances will also rise by 3.4 per cent. This means that an experienced staff nurse in London will earn basic pay of £22,250; and elsewhere £19,220, with allowances and enhancements typically worth £2,000 on top of this.

  The NPRB have also recommended across the board increases of 3.4 per cent. for physiotherapists, radiographers and other professions allied to medicine (PAMs). In addition about 4,500 experienced staff in the Senior 2 grade will receive total increases worth between 8.1 per cent. and 8.4 per cent., to improve career progression for experienced staff at the top of their scale. The maximum of the scale for Senior 2 grade PAMs will be £21,290. London allowances, stand-by and on-call allowances will also rise by 3.4 per cent.

  The Government have decided to accept all the NPRB pay recommendations for 2000–01, with no staging. The across the board settlement of 3.4 per cent. for nurses and other NPRB remit groups is high when set against the current headline inflation rate and more than we are expecting for pay settlements in the public sector generally. However, National Health Service staff deserve a fair pay award, especially after coping so magnificently with huge pressures over the past few weeks. Moreover, we are still having to tackle the nursing recruitment and retention problems inherited as a direct consequence of the last Government's failure. This year's settlement will build on last year's large awards. Taken together, the great majority of Grade D and E nurses—the backbone of the service, who deliver hands-on patient care—will have received very significant pay increases which both recognise and value their contribution to the NHS.

  Last year's pay awards gave a big boost to the success of the nurses' recruitment campaign which we launched in February 1999. Already over 5,000 nurses have returned or are set to do so after completing refresher training, and numbers taking up nursing degree and diploma courses have increased by 24 per cent. and 18 per cent. respectively. There has also been a sharp increase in male applications and in applications from the ethnic minority communities. But we are not stopping there and are determined to build on this success in our 2000 campaign to be launched next month. These awards will provide a welcome boost.

  The Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body (DDRB) has recommended an overall increase of 3.3 per cent. for salaried doctors and dentists and in the pay element of fees for general medical and general dental practitioners. In addition to the 3.3 per cent. increase, consultants will also start to receive from 1 April 2000 the increases

  287W
  flowing through from the £50 million recommended by DDRB last year in recognition of their workload, work intensity and commitment to the NHS. These increases are worth a further 3 per cent. on their pay bill and will take two forms. First, changes to the discretionary point arrangements means that there will be over 2,400 extra awards available (worth over £2,500 each), making almost 5,600 in total, while the number of consultants eligible to receive awards will increase from 12,600 to almost 16,000. Second, there will be a new scheme to recognise consultants working in the most intense posts. For junior doctors the 3.3 per cent. increase is over and above the money already on the table in our current negotiations on their new contract; from October 2000, this would add 6 per cent. to their paybill in the first 12 months.

  General dental practitioners will also benefit from a £20 million package to recognise experience and quality and to reward past and present commitment to NHS dentistry. This will give a big boost to the Government's dental strategy and to improve access to NHS dentistry.

  The contribution of all staff will be crucial if we are to maintain and improve the quality of patient care and to modernise the NHS. These pay awards, which build on the platform set by last year's increases, reflect a proper balance between the pay needed to recruit, retain and motivate staff and the needs of modern service delivery and patient care.

  Care Home Standards
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of existing residential capacity that will be lost if his Draft Required Standards for Residential and Nursing Care are implemented. [102994]

  Mr. Hutton
  Occupancy rates for care homes and nursing currently runs nationally at about 85 per cent., and locally, in some regions such as Lancashire, at about 50 per cent.

  The number of beds which would need to be de-commissioned nationally in order to comply with the Centre for Policy on Ageing's proposed standards was estimated for the Department of Health by Laing and Buisson as approximately 4.2 per cent. for residential care homes and 8.1 per cent. for nursing homes. This information was published in September last year.

  Further information on the possible impact of some of the proposed standards is set out in the annexes to the consultation document, "Fit for the Future?"

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the methodology used by his Department in making their regulatory impact assessment in respect of the Draft Required Standards for Residential and Nursing Homes; and if he will make a statement. [102993]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have not received any comments specifically directed at methodology used in the regulatory impact assessment in the consultation document, "Fit for the Future?". However, we have yet to evaluate all the comments which are being received on "Fit for the Future?". We will carefully consider all the comments we receive.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the lowest number of intensive care beds available in each region of England and Wales on each day between 20 December and 10 January. [104649]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Information collected by the Department is unvalidated management information gathered over a period of hours primarily to give an indication of bed availability. However, the position may change constantly and it is not possible to establish whether the figures obtained reflect the lowest, maximum or average occupancy for that day. Even when no beds are reported as available, National Health Service trusts may invoke contingency arrangements to give patients the care they need. For this reason it is not possible to provide the information requested. The unvalidated management information has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his target waiting time for calls to NHS Direct to be answered; what measures are in place to monitor waiting times; and what waiting times were being achieved at the latest date for which figures are available. [104777]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct does not have an explicit target waiting time for all callers by which time their call will be answered.

  In November, the latest information available, 81 per cent. of calls were answered within 15 seconds, and calls were answered on average within 25 seconds.

  Epidemics
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the current definition used by his Department of an epidemic. [104775]

  Yvette Cooper
  The epidemiologists definition of an epidemic is an increase in the frequency of occurrence of a disease in a population above its baseline level for a specified period of time. The term epidemic can be used when describing the pattern of either infectious or chronic diseases in the population.

  Administrative definitions can be set for different diseases in which an arbitrary threshold is selected above which the term "epidemic" is applied. In the case of influenza, the Department introduced in 1996 an administrative definition of an "epidemic" for a rate of consultation (with a sample of general practices) of 400 per 100,000 population in a week.

  Such influenza activity in England is thus monitored through the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) sentinel surveillance scheme. This records the number of first visits to a general practitioner with influenza-illness. Other respiratory illnesses prevalent at this time of year are recorded separately.

  This system does not and cannot measure the real incidence of influenza since it is restricted to those people who visit their general practitioner. This year a major

  289W
  campaign was run to encourage people to choose their own remedy, to consult a pharmacist and to use NHS Direct, as alternative sources of advice.

  The severity of the disease itself can also vary from year to year. This year the elderly have been particularly affected by the complications of influenza. The level of cases of acute bronchitis, a serious complication of influenza, is the highest the RCGP surveillance system has seen for 15 years. In describing epidemics some other countries formally include measures of severity in the definition of an epidemic. For example, the United States declares an epidemic when the proportion of deaths due to pneumonia and influenza passes a certain threshold.

  The Department has not introduced administrative definitions of an epidemic for diseases other than influenza.

  Health Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money is spent per head of population on health services in(a) South Lancashire and (b) North Lancashire Health Authority area; [105115]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of medical services at Chorley and South Ribble Hospital; [105117]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the provision of satellite renal services at Chorley and South Ribble Hospital; [105116]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the financial situation of the South Lancashire Health Authority; [105114]

  (5) what plans he has to introduce new and enhanced existing medical services at Chorley and South Ribble Hospital; [105170]

  (6) if he will end the practice of postcode medicine in Lancashire by merging the relevant health authorities. [105113]

  Ms Stuart
  South Lancashire and North West Lancashire health authorities commissioned Professor Sir Leslie Turnberg to review the provision of medical services in Chorley, South Ribble and Preston and to recommend the best configuration of services to meet the needs of local residents. The Boards of Chorley and South Ribble National Health Service Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust endorsed the recommendations of that review team.

  The NHS Executive is currently undertaking organisational development work designed to improve health and health services in the north west. Any proposals for organisational reconfigurations of health authorities arising from these discussions will be subject to formal public consultation.

  Figures for expenditure per head of population in South Lancashire and North West Lancashire, are given in the table.

  South Lancashire Health Authority planned for an income and expenditure deficit of £1.1 million for 1999–2000—the forecast outturn at Q3 indicates that this plan will be achieved. The authority is planning to return to a recurrently balanced financial position in the short term.
  290W
  The health authority has commissioned an independent review of the health economy within South Lancashire and all relevant parties, the health authority, primary care groups and NHS Trusts are supporting this review. It is intended that the review will assist the health economy in South Lancashire to identify solutions to the current financial position.

  The four health authorities serving Lancashire and South Cumbria have agreed a strategy to improve the provision of renal services in the area. An additional 15 dialysis stations, due to open at the Royal Preston Hospital in the spring, will benefit Chorley and South Ribble residents. The next stage of the process will involve investment in satellite units and the possibility of a unit at Chorley has been recognised in the strategy.

  The range of quality of medical services provided by Chorley and South Ribble District General Hospital is kept under continuous review by commissioning health authorities.

  Expenditure on health services by head of population in the North West Region (by health authority)

  1998–99

  £

  North West Lancashire Health Authority

  649.68

  South Lancashire Health Authority

  606.42

  North West Region

  649.50

  Notes:

  1. The majority of drugs expenditure has been accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority rather than individual health authorities. Also the majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not available by health authority.

  2. Figures are taken from health authority annual accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year.

  Source:

  Health authority accounts for 1998–99.

  Mid-year resident population estimates for 1998.

  Care in the Community
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require organisations which provide care in the community to ensure that residents in receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance retain that money or have it expended solely on their behalf. [104818]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance may not be taken into account for charging purposes. Section 73(14) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 requires these payments, or the right to receive them, be disregarded in any charging schemes which have regard to a person's means.

  Charities
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with ministers on proposals to amend charity law to enable charities in receipt of Section 64 grants to improve accountability of their use of public funds; and if he will make a statement. [104820]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. Government funding for voluntary organisations, including aspects of accountability, is however to be covered in a Code of Practice to underpin the "Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector
  291W
  in England". The Department is involved with the voluntary sector in the development of the Code and will encourage the application of its principles at local level.

  Cancer (Death Rates)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland on 1 December for answer on 6 December relating to death rates from cancer (ref. 101422). [104772]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 11 January,Official Report, column 140W.

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will appoint board members for the university hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. [104823]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the recent appointment of Philip Hammersley CBE as chair of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, the non-executive directors will be appointed shortly.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP referrals were there of people with mental health problems in each of the last 10 years. [105120]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not keep central records of the diagnosis given by General Medical Practitioners to their patients. However, records have been kept since 1995–96 of the number of written referrals to specialised NHS mental health services. These show:

  GP written referrals to mental health specialities 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Total

  1995–96

  54,014

  53,527

  51,908

  59,627

  219,076

  1996–97

  57,551

  54,843

  59,227

  60,392

  232,013

  1997–98

  61,771

  58,307

  59,549

  62,183

  241,810

  1998–99

  56,819

  55,901

  57,570

  61,463

  231,753

  1999–2000

  56,966

  55,667

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return from NHS trusts

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the sickness rates of staff employed in NHS mental health services for each of the last 10 years. [105122]

  Mr. Denham
  According to a survey conducted by the Department in 1998–99 the average sickness absence rate for staff directly employed by National Health Service trusts was 4.6 per cent. This is equivalent to approximately eight million out of the 176 million days worked each year by National Health Service staff. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229, "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", copies of which are available in the Library. Similar information for earlier years, and information about staff working in mental health services, is not collected centrally, but may be held 292W
  locally by individual National Health Service employers. We have agreed improvement targets for health authorities and NHS trusts to
  "achieve year on year improvement in sickness absence rates" of 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the staff-to-patient ratio in NHS mental health services for each of the past 10 years; [105119]

  (2) what was the ratio of National Health Service employees working with people with mental health problems per 100,000 of the population, in each of the past 10 years. [105084]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual caseload for(a) mental health social workers, (b) mental health occupational therapists, (c) psychiatric nurses and (d) psychologists for each of the last 10 years. [105123]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information in the form requested is not collected centrally.

  Information about the number of patient contacts with the Occupational Therapy Services, Community Psychiatric Nursing Services and Clinical Psychology Services is collected annually and published by the Department. The latest information is contained in the following summaries which are available in the Library; "Occupational Therapy Services, Summary Information for 1998–99, England", "Patient Care in the Community, Community Psychiatric Nursing, Summary Information for 1998–99, England" and "Clinical Psychology Services, Summary Information for 1998–99, England". Information about patient contacts made by mental health social workers is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the additional money allocated for the NHS in the Comprehensive Spending Review has been earmarked for NHS mental health services. [105118]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Modernising Mental Health Services" set out our vision for safe, sound and supportive mental health services for working age adults. In launching the strategy we announced additional funding over the 3-year Comprehensive Spending Review period of £700 million for health and social services.

  Over the 3-year Comprehensive Spending Review period (1999–2000 to 2001–02) at least £500 million will be ear-marked for mental health services from within the modernisation funds for health and social services. Of this over £300 million will come from the National Health Service modernisation fund.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of staff working in NHS mental health services in each of the last 10 years. [105121]
  293W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. The Workforce Action Team charged with taking forward the Mental Health National Service Framework workforce, planning, education and training underpinning programme, is seeking to map the mental health workforce.

  Eye Tests (Disabled People)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide free eye tests and prescriptions for the disabled. [105162]

  Mr. Hutton
  The extensive exemption and remission arrangements mean that many disabled people in England are entitled to free prescriptions and sight tests. Similar arrangements exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom but are now a matter for the devolved Administrations.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Supervision of Solicitors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans the Lord Chancellor has to strengthen the supervision of solicitors with particular regard to(a) investigation of solicitor negligence and (b) more stringent penalties to be imposed by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in cases of poor service. [104630]

  Jane Kennedy
  Allegations of negligence are reviewed by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, which, as it cannot give legal advice, has set up a panel of independent solicitors to whom such allegations may be referred. The panel solicitors will advise the complainant on whether a solicitor has been negligent and if so what action can by pursued. It is thereafter a decision for the complainant how to pursue the matter. However, the position on how complaints about negligence are handled is kept under review.

  The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors can currently award compensation of £1,000 for inadequate professional service. However, the Lord Chancellor has exercised his powers to increase the limit to £5,000. This is to take effect from 31 March 2000.

  How much was spent1 (£)

  The maximum bonus paid (£)

  Number of staff claiming the maximum

  The minimum bonus paid (£)

  Number of staff claiming the (£)

  Lord Chancellor's Department2

  36,2503

  600

  10

  50

  98

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  26,1504

  550

  3

  75

  15

  Land Registry

  32,1105

  365

  1

  25

  47

  Public Record Office

  4,700

  250

  8

  150

  11

  1 The amounts given do not include ERNIC (employment related National Insurance Contributions)

  2 Including LCD Headquarters and Associated Offices, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office.

  3 Based on bonus claims received up to and including 12 January 2000.

  4 Based on bonus claims received up to and including 13 January 2000.

  5 Based on bonus claims received up to and including 13 January 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Office
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the extra cost incurred by the Passport Office as a result of the backlog of applications for passports. [103977]

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 11 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104473]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of the items in the asset registers of the Lord Chancellor's Department, its agencies and associated public bodies, which have been sold since 11 February 1999, along with the amount of money realised from such sales to date are listed in the table. For further details and an estimate of asset sales for 1999–2000, I refer the hon. Member to a written answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 2 November 1999,Official Report, columns 156–57W.

  Proceeds from asset sales (11 February 1999 to date)

  Description

  £

  Land and Buildings

  301,019

  Motor vehicles

  24,550

  Computer Equipment

  2,950

  Other Equipment

  1,467

  Table

  329,986

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, 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 payments; and if he will make a statement. [104474]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details are given in the table. Bonuses were payable to staff required over the New Year period for testing and reporting on IT, security or facilities systems.

  Mrs. Roche
  We estimate the costs at £12.6 million.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to increase the total number of police officers in England and Wales over the next three years. [103979]
  295W
  Mr. Straw
  Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, chief officers of police determine staffing requirements within the overall resources available to them.

  Over this and the next two years, we have increased the resources available from central Government by £1.24 billion. In addition, the Crime Fighting Fund will be used to recruit 5,000 new police officers over and above the number which forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years commencing in April 2000. £35 million will be allocated in the first year of the fund to kick start the scheme. Additional money will be provided in years two and three.

  Victims of Crime
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with organisations representing the victims of crime about improving information to victims about appeals. [103980]

  Mr. Boateng
  Home Office Ministers and officials have frequent contact, both formal and informal, with Victim Support and other organisations representing victims of crime, including the criminal justice agencies and services. There have been no formal discussions in recent months about information to victims about appeals.

  Electoral Reform
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of consultations on the Jenkins Commission's proposals for reform of the voting system. [103981]

  Mr. Straw
  We have said that we wish to see a debate in the country about the merits of the Jenkins proposals. That is continuing. The final decision as to whether to adopt the Jenkins proposals will be taken by the people of this country in a referendum.

  Winston Silcott
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the payment of compensation to Winston Silcott. [103982]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, was informed by the Metropolitan Police Solicitor of the reasons for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis seeking to settle the civil action for malicious prosecution brought against the Commissioner by Mr. Silcott. The settlement was made without an admission of guilt and my right hon. Friend does not intend to call for a report from the Commissioner.

  Police Funding (Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which funds the Chief Constable of Lancashire can apply to bid for additional funding for more police officers for 2000–01. [103983]

  Mr. Straw
  As I informed the House on 2 December 1999,Official Report, columns 194–97W, Chief Constables and police authorities in England and Wales
  296W
  were invited on 2 December to submit bids by 10 January for a share of the Crime Fighting Fund. I placed a copy of the bidding guidelines in the Library of the House.

  The fund will be used to recruit 5,000 police officers over and above the number forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years commencing in April 2000. £35 million will be allocated in the first year of the fund to kick start the scheme. Additional money will be provided in years two and three.

  Elections (New Technology)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used in national and local elections. [103984]

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to promote the use of modern technology in electoral procedures. [103990]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage, includes provisions to allow local authorities to pilot innovative electoral procedures, such as electronic voting and electronic counting.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the penalties available to ensure road hauliers do not bring illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. [103985]

  Mrs. Roche
  Under Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, it is a criminal offence to facilitate the entry to the United Kingdom of an illegal entrant, or asylum claimant. The penalty, on summary conviction, is a fine of not more than £5,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both; conviction on indictment is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for not more than seven years, or both. That period is increased under Section 29 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to ten years.

  Section 32–37 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 make provision for a civil penalty to be imposed for the carriage of a clandestine entrant to the United Kingdom. Subject to the laying of enabling regulations before Parliament in the near future, it is envisaged that the penalty will be the sum of £2,000 for each clandestine entrant.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for portable CCTV units in the past year; what proposals he has to provide resources for portable systems of CCTV; and if he will make a statement. [103986]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Forty five applications under the first round of the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television Initiative were solely for portable or mobile CCTV schemes, while many of the remaining 705 applications contained a mobile element.
  297W
  Today's announcement of CCTV awards includes four bids for mobile systems, totalling £256,020. This is on top of £32,056 awarded last month to a mobile scheme. 18 proposals for mobile schemes to a potential value of £2.7 million have been deferred for further consideration.

  Further bids for mobile CCTV systems can be submitted under the next phase of funding, details of which will be announced shortly.

  Crime Reduction Initiative
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homes will be covered by his Department's Crime Reduction Programme Initiative to reduce burglaries. [103987]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Reducing Burglary Initiative is expected to cover a total of approximately two million households.

  In addition, the initiative to provide security improvements for the homes of pensioners on low incomes in areas with high burglary rates, which we announced in September, is expected to provide enhanced security in up to 150,000 homes.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many low-income pensioner households will receive help from the Crime Reduction Programme in respect of burglary in the current financial year. [103995]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The £11 million initiative to provide security improvements for the homes of pensioners on low incomes in areas with high burglary rates, which we announced in September, will not start until June 2000 but is expected to provide enhanced security for up to 150,000 homes over two years.

  About 223,000 households are currently covered by 63 anti-burglary projects under the £50 million Reducing Burglary Initiative (which will eventually cover some two million households). However, details of the income or age group of the households involved are not available centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom through Heathrow Airport in 1999, 1998, 1997 and 1996. [103988]

  Mrs. Roche
  A total of 10,785 asylum applications were made at the four Heathrow Terminals in the period January to November 1999. This compares with 10,665 in 1998, 8,625 in 1997 and 8,520 in 1996.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to assist those granted asylum in the United Kingdom to integrate into British society. [103989]

  Mrs. Roche
  A consultation paper was issued on 2 November 1999 which set out our proposals for the integration of refugees and those granted exceptional 298W
  leave to remain based on partnership with everyone involved—the voluntary sector, local authorities and social services. Over 30 responses have been received and we will be considering the way forward in the light of those responses.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of asylum seekers who will be sent to locations in Scotland in 2000 and 2001. [103971]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is too soon to say how many asylum seekers might be dispersed to Scotland. The number will depend on the extent to which accommodation can be provided in Scotland, and the number of asylum seekers seeking a full support package. We are in discussion with the Scottish Executive and a Scottish Consortium representing local authority interests in Scotland about these matters.

  Crime Figures
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the most recent crime figures for Kent. [103991]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest figures, covering the 12 months to September 1999, will be published tomorrow.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of Cheshire Police in reducing crime. [103992]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Cheshire Police achieved a reduction in recorded crime of 26 per cent. over the period 1993–94 to 1998–99. The ratio of crimes to population in Cheshire also compares well with other forces. In partnership with local authorities and other agencies, the police are continuing that good work.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest crime figures for Cheshire. [103993]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest figures, covering the 12 months to September 1999, will be published tomorrow.

  Witness Protection
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures is he taking to ensure that witnesses in magistrates courts are adequately protected. [103994]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In February 1999, we asked Victim Support to replicate in magistrates courts the excellent support service for victims and witnesses they were already providing, with Home Office funding, at all Crown Court centres. The annual Home Office grant to Victim Support is being increased incrementally by 50 per cent. to £19 million to enable them to establish witness support services in all magistrates courts by April 2002.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on his proposals to restrict the right to elect trial by jury; and if he will make a statement. [103996]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There were 133 responses to the consultation paper, "Determining mode of trial in either-way cases". The Home Office has also received about 210 letters on this issue.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been reported to him by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher since the arrival of the UK's ambassador in Tripoli. [103997]

  Mr. Straw
  None as yet, although the Metropolitan police intend to pursue their investigation into WPC Fletcher's murder vigorously. Our Ambassador in Tripoli has now taken up his post and this should help in that process. The Metropolitan police continue to expect full co-operation from the Libyan authorities.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of police forces which have had a real-terms fall in funding in the current financial year after the cost of police pensions is taken into account. [103998]

  Mr. Straw
  Allocations of Government funding to police authorities are made on the basis of a needs-based formula, which takes into account projected pensions expenditure. As with most formulae, variations can occur from year to year, with some authorities doing relatively better than others.

  Police authority "budget requirements" will increase by 3.1 per cent. in this financial year. On the basis of estimates provided by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the police service nationally could have an increase in net expenditure in this financial year of 5.9 per cent. taking account among other things of the use of reserves. It is for individual authorities to determine how best to manage their budgets. Prudent management of medical retirements can help police authorities to reduce pensions' costs and deploy more resources to front-line policing.

  Polling Stations (Access)
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to improve access for the disabled to polling stations. [103999]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Guidance on national minimum access standards for disabled voters was issued in June 1999; new guidance on disabled access is being developed; grants are available for temporary ramps and polling screens; and, the Representation of the People Bill provides for the piloting of alternative voting arrangements at local elections to improve access to voting.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of financial support from central Government have been made to Victim Support in each of the last five financial years. [104000]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The annual Home Office grant to Victim Support in the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Grant

  1995–96

  10.817

  1996–97

  11.682

  1997–98

  12.682

  1998–99

  12.682

  1999–2000

  17.300

  The grant is set to rise to £18.3 million in 2000–01 and to £19 million in 2001–02.

  Weekend Voting
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to establish pilot projects for voting at the weekend. [103973]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage, includes provisions to allow local authorities to pilot innovative electoral procedures, such as voting at the weekend.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Service
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list on a force by force basis the estimated costs of implementing PSRCP [104376]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Most of the costs of implementing the Public Safety Radio Communications Service (PSRCS) are contained within annual charges for the core service. These will be met by central funding by means of deduction from total police grant provision and will be reduced by the £50 million subsidy I announced last September.

  Individual forces will elect to take a range of services additional to the core service to meet their own requirements. From figures provided by forces we estimate that the cost of these non-core services will be around £30 million per annum for the police service nationally. The table provides the currently available estimates for the cost of non-core services to individual forces.

  Forces will also need to purchase radio terminals, control room equipment and integration services. No force-specific estimates are available, but the Police Information Technology Organisation estimates that the total cost of these additional items for forces in England and Wales will be around £300 million in net present cost terms. This includes the cost of initial purchase and subsequent replacement over the life of the project but excludes the cost of the dedicated teams which each force will need to set up to manage implementation of the

  301W
  PSRCS. These costs need to be set against the expenditure which forces already incur in maintaining their existing radiocommunication systems.

  Estimate of force annual PSRCS menu service charge at 1999–2000 prices

  Force

  Estimated annual cost of menu services £000

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  84

  Bedfordshire Police

  105

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  210

  Cheshire Constabulary

  384

  City of London Police

  132

  Cleveland Constabulary

  257

  Cumbria Constabulary

  242

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  297

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  916

  Dorset Police

  160

  Durham Constabulary

  671

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  23

  Essex Police

  1,357

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  233

  Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

  599

  Gwent Constabulary

  134

  Hampshire Constabulary

  1,442

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  412

  Humberside Police

  216

  Kent County Constabulary

  1,460

  Lancashire Constabulary

  755

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  346

  Lincolnshire Police

  206

  Merseyside Police

  329

  Metropolitan Police Service

  3,188

  Norfolk Constabulary

  248

  North Wales Police

  238

  North Yorkshire Police

  886

  Northamptonshire Police

  1,281

  Table 1: Police force net expenditure, and percentage change in real terms, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  Avon and Somerset

  107,282

  2.9

  116,004

  1.8

  127,928

  6.7

  134,323

  2.3

  141,283

  3.7

  Bedfordshire

  36,053

  3.1

  40,027

  4.5

  45,036

  8.9

  48,666

  5.3

  51,514

  4.4

  Cambridgeshire

  43,173

  3.1

  48,001

  4.7

  51,126

  3.1

  56,974

  8.6

  58,650

  1.5

  Cheshire

  63,620

  -0.2

  68,496

  1.4

  74,058

  4.7

  80,026

  5.3

  82,804

  2.0

  City of London

  38,288

  -0.3

  41,919

  3.1

  45,151

  4.3

  51,111

  10.3

  52,365

  1.0

  Cleveland

  52,889

  3.2

  58,690

  4.5

  62,269

  2.7

  66,289

  3.7

  69,007

  2.6

  Cumbria

  41,312

  5.1

  46,548

  6.1

  50,736

  5.5

  51,699

  -0.7

  54,281

  3.5

  Derbyshire

  62,086

  -3.3

  66,686

  1.1

  76,554

  11.1

  78,976

  0.5

  84,362

  5.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  107,378

  4.8

  119,619

  4.9

  129,634

  4.9

  137,578

  3.4

  140,830

  0.9

  Dorset

  50,150

  6.6

  54,239

  1.8

  57,639

  2.9

  59,345

  0.3

  66,285

  10.1

  Durham

  45,673

  2.2

  49,517

  2.1

  53,853

  5.3

  57,825

  4.6

  59,237

  1.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  32,504

  0.6

  36,366

  5.3

  40,189

  7.0

  42,315

  2.6

  45,595

  6.2

  Essex

  106,902

  7.3

  119,118

  4.9

  129,559

  5.3

  137,043

  3.0

  n/a

  n/a

  Gloucestershire

  41,526

  5.1

  46,370

  5.1

  49,361

  3.0

  51,549

  1.7

  55,180

  5.5

  Greater Manchester

  236,520

  1.6

  256,562

  2.1

  281,761

  6.3

  304,622

  5.3

  320,931

  3.9

  Gwent

  34,595

  5.4

  38,270

  4.2

  40,642

  2.8

  42,609

  2.1

  44,148

  2.2

  Hampshire

  114,172

  4.3

  127,841

  5.4

  142,133

  7.6

  146,790

  0.6

  155,257

  4.3

  Hertfordshire

  59,681

  5.4

  63,633

  0.4

  70,029

  6.5

  74,029

  3.0

  84,435

  12.5

  Humberside

  71,151

  2.5

  78,591

  4.0

  86,795

  6.9

  90,194

  1.2

  92,365

  1.0

  Kent

  107,675

  2.1

  128,118

  12.0

  136,307

  3.0

  142,749

  2.0

  153,757

  6.2

  Lancashire

  114,195

  5.4

  127,076

  4.8

  132,092

  0.6

  142,518

  5.1

  145,181

  0.4

  Leicestershire

  63,597

  1.9

  70,562

  4.5

  75,262

  3.2

  78,201

  1.2

  81,166

  2.3

  Lincolnshire

  43,025

  5.2

  48,704

  6.6

  53,039

  5.4

  55.698

  2.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Merseyside

  165,167

  2.1

  182,680

  4.1

  193,410

  2.5

  207,713

  4.6

  215,461

  2.3

  Metropolitan Police

  1,273,265

  9.6

  1,420,575

  5.1

  1,513,654

  3.1

  1,552,791

  -0.1

  1,588,001

  0.8

  Norfolk

  49,106

  5.2

  56,134

  7.6

  60,658

  4.6

  64,086

  2.9

  68,546

  5.5

  Northamptonshire

  41,997

  2.5

  47,081

  5.6

  52,575

  8.1

  55,136

  2.2

  60,306

  7.8

  302W

  Estimate of force annual PSRCS menu service charge at 1999–2000 prices

  Force

  Estimated annual cost of menu services £000

  Northumbria Police

  635

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  178

  South Wales Constabulary

  684

  South Yorkshire Police

  256

  Staffordshire Police

  801

  Suffolk Constabulary

  1,450

  Surrey Police

  334

  Sussex Police

  1,180

  Thames Valley Police

  1,303

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  650

  West Mercia Constabulary

  268

  West Midlands Police

  2,670

  West Yorkshire Police

  2,297

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  135

  Total for England and Wales

  29,655

  Police
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the real terms change in police budgets in each English county and Metropolitan area for each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02; if he will provide estimates on the same basis excluding moneys needed to fund annual increases in police pensions; and if he will make a statement. [105097]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available, which has been compiled from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's Police Statistics, is set out in the tables. Police authority budgets for 2001–02 have not been set. Information on net police pensions expenditure for 1990–91 to 1992–93 is not readily available.
  303W

  Table 1: Police force net expenditure, and percentage change in real terms, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  Northumbria

  124,873

  3.0

  139,999

  5.6

  145,882

  0.9

  160,045

  6.9

  175,837

  8.3

  North Wales

  45,838

  2.4

  51,608

  6.0

  57,140

  7.2

  59,818

  2.0

  62,647

  3.3

  North Yorkshire

  48,995

  2.5

  53,161

  2.2

  60,123

  9.5

  63,477

  2.8

  63,772

  -1.0

  Nottinghamshire

  79,305

  5.8

  85,209

  1.2

  92,856

  5.5

  98,755

  3.6

  106,195

  6.0

  South Wales

  108,737

  2.5

  122,294

  5.9

  129,897

  2.8

  134,019

  0.5

  133,688

  -1.7

  South Yorkshire

  101,200

  3.9

  108,676

  1.1

  122,395

  9.0

  129,441

  3.0

  137,623

  4.8

  Staffordshire

  76,903

  6.5

  84,322

  3.2

  90,497

  3.9

  96,896

  4.3

  100,265

  2.0

  Suffolk

  44,755

  4.0

  49,246

  3.6

  52,052

  2.3

  55,460

  3.8

  56,828

  1.0

  Surrey

  59,126

  3.1

  64,426

  2.6

  71,426

  7.3

  75,322

  2.7

  84,371

  10.4

  Sussex

  94,916

  2.5

  108,489

  7.6

  117,529

  4.9

  122,444

  1.5

  130,382

  5.0

  Thames Valley

  146,950

  12.5

  156,072

  0.0

  165,443

  2.6

  179,632

  5.8

  192,080

  5.4

  Warwickshire

  37,963

  9.9

  41,479

  2.9

  44,128

  3.0

  47,637

  5.2

  50,000

  3.5

  West Mercia

  70,480

  3.7

  79,836

  6.7

  84,508

  2.5

  91,372

  5.3

  98,108

  5.9

  West Midlands

  231,478

  2.7

  254,477

  3.5

  288,798

  9.9

  297,807

  0.5

  313,518

  3.8

  West Yorkshire

  190,733

  4.8

  206,169

  1.8

  215,727

  1.3

  226,900

  2.5

  236,100

  2.6

  Wiltshire

  41,547

  6.9

  46,907

  6.3

  51,912

  7.1

  54,252

  -1.8

  59,155

  7.5

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  £000

  (+/-%)

  Avon and Somerset

  141,091

  -2.9

  152,087

  4.4

  152,673

  -2.4

  162,726

  3.2

  174,424

  4.8

  Bedfordshire

  54,533

  2.9

  56,627

  0.6

  58,570

  0.6

  61,778

  2.1

  64,027

  1.4

  Cambridgeshire

  61,003

  1.1

  65,024

  3.3

  68,681

  2.7

  73,432

  3.5

  75,363

  0.4

  Cheshire

  87,315

  2.5

  94,177

  4.5

  104,005

  7.4

  107.093

  -0.3

  111,094

  1.5

  City of London

  56,042

  4.0

  57,317

  -0.9

  57,893

  -1.8

  60,350

  0.9

  58,719

  -4.8

  Cleveland

  68,558

  -3.4

  73,108

  3.3

  75,426

  0.3

  81,295

  4.4

  85,397

  2.7

  Cumbria

  53,444

  -4.3

  56,856

  3.1

  61,709

  5.6

  62,532

  -1.9

  64,693

  1.2

  Derbyshire

  86,015

  -0.9

  90,420

  1.8

  95,641

  2.9

  100,064

  1.3

  107,035

  4.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  144,513

  -0.3

  150,392

  0.8

  155,435

  0.5

  166,330

  3.6

  173,649

  2.1

  Dorset

  63,276

  -7.2

  67,831

  3.9

  69,727

  0.0

  73,117

  1.5

  77,749

  4.0

  Durham

  62,432

  2.4

  68,035

  5.6

  75,166

  7.5

  74,673

  -3.8

  80,712

  5.7

  Dyfed-Powys

  46,197

  -1.5

  47,869

  0.4

  50,952

  3.5

  50,040

  -4.9

  56,143

  9.7

  Essex

  n/a

  n/a

  151,412

  n/a

  157,487

  1.2

  156,822

  -3.6

  171,590

  7.0

  Gloucestershire

  53,977

  -4.9

  58,420

  4.9

  58,633

  -2.4

  62,862

  3.8

  65,933

  2.6

  Greater Manchester

  331,304

  0.3

  341,170

  -0.2

  353,319

  0.7

  354,171

  -2.9

  387,256

  6.9

  Gwent

  44,436

  -2.2

  57,742

  25.9

  64,598

  8.8

  67,655

  1.4

  71,414

  3.2

  Hampshire

  163,193

  2.2

  172,845

  2.6

  180,791

  1.7

  186,661

  0.0

  196,955

  3.2

  Hertfordshire

  87,825

  1.1

  88,863

  -2.0

  93,011

  1.8

  95,068

  -1.0

  102,361

  5.3

  Humberside

  96,418

  1.5

  99,719

  0.2

  106,220

  3.6

  112,571

  2.6

  114,306

  -0.7

  Kent

  155,223

  -1.9

  161,625

  0.9

  174,211

  4.8

  175,577

  -2.4

  186,225

  3.7

  Lancashire

  152,225

  1.9

  161,865

  3.0

  169,275

  1.7

  177,310

  1.4

  182,679

  0.8

  Leicestershire

  86,855

  4.0

  92,853

  3.6

  98,789

  3.5

  102,790

  0.8

  106,279

  1.1

  Lincolnshire

  n/a

  n/a

  61,508

  n/a

  66,184

  4.7

  66,664

  -2.5

  69,970

  2.6

  Merseyside

  220,007

  -0.8

  221,172

  -2.6

  224,327

  -1.3

  240,267

  3.7

  249,522

  1.6

  Metropolitan Police

  1,639,392

  0.3

  1,683,181

  -0.5

  1,676,617

  -3.1

  1,716,425

  -0.9

  1,840,245

  4.9

  Norfolk

  70,378

  -0.2

  75,547

  4.0

  80,222

  3.3

  80,543

  -2.8

  86,870

  5.5

  Northamptonshire

  57,075

  -8.0

  59,252

  0.6

  64,605

  6.1

  67,057

  0.5

  70,432

  2.7

  Northumbria

  178,820

  -1.2

  186,410

  1.0

  195,092

  1.8

  205,270

  1.9

  213,010

  1.5

  North Wales

  65,933

  2.3

  68,266

  0.3

  70,920

  1.0

  72,481

  -1.0

  80,505

  8.6

  North Yorkshire

  63,096

  -3.8

  67,042

  2.9

  71,840

  4.2

  75,344

  1.6

  78,085

  1.4

  Nottinghamshire

  106,334

  -2.7

  113,591

  3.5

  120,556

  3.2

  127,018

  2.0

  130,173

  0.2

  South Wales

  144,452

  5.0

  147,458

  -1.1

  159,411

  5.1

  160.938

  -2.2

  169,968

  3.3

  South Yorkshire

  144,354

  1.9

  150,949

  1.3

  166,027

  7.0

  167,159

  -2.5

  173,933

  1.8

  Staffordshire

  98,661

  -4.4

  107,832

  5.9

  110,264

  -0.5

  116,231

  2.1

  127,472

  7.3

  Suffolk

  55,814

  -4.5

  60,963

  5.8

  63,676

  1.6

  66,096

  0.5

  70,538

  4.4

  Surrey

  83,000

  -4.4

  85,345

  -0.4

  90,976

  3.7

  91,425

  -2.7

  100,375

  7.4

  Sussex

  137,785

  2.7

  150,626

  5.9

  157,631

  1.8

  161,847

  -0.6

  165,804

  0.2

  Thames Valley

  194,465

  -1.6

  201,397

  0.3

  210,333

  1.6

  209,675

  -3.5

  232,729

  8.6

  Warwickshire

  47,760

  -7.2

  47,686

  -3.3

  51,003

  4.0

  52,015

  -1.2

  56,157

  5.6

  West Mercia

  95,886

  -5.0

  102,078

  3.1

  107,788

  2.7

  113,755

  2.2

  116,490

  0.2

  West Midlands

  331,075

  2.6

  337,992

  -1.1

  360,129

  3.6

  368,608

  -0.9

  380,971

  1.1

  West Yorkshire

  238,801

  -1.7

  265,233

  7.6

  281,745

  3.3

  277,994

  -4.4

  288,865

  1.6

  Wiltshire

  54,448

  -10.5

  59,993

  6.7

  58,535

  -5.1

  68,811

  13.8

  69,715

  -0.9

  Notes:

  1990–91 to 1998–99—CIPFA Police Statistics Actuals

  1999–2000—CIPFA Police Statistics Estimates

  Real terms increases based on Treasury GDP Deflators published on 23 December 1999
  304W 305W

  Table 2: Police force net expenditure 1993–94 to 1999–2000; percentage increase in real terms excluding pensions expenditure

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  -1.4

  3.7

  -3.6

  2.1

  -4.0

  5.5

  2.1

  Bedfordshire

  5.6

  1.6

  2.1

  -0.1

  -1.6

  0.9

  0.2

  Cambridgeshire

  8.1

  0.1

  0.6

  1.7

  1.7

  3.4

  -1.8

  Cheshire

  4.4

  2.3

  -0.3

  8.2

  4.0

  1.3

  -2.0

  City of London

  9.6

  -0.1

  0.9

  -0.2

  -3.0

  -5.3

  -1.0

  Cleveland

  0.7

  4.4

  -3.5

  3.0

  1.4

  1.1

  -2.0

  Cumbria

  -1.2

  3.0

  -5.4

  1.5

  5.7

  -4.2

  0.7

  Derbyshire

  0.2

  5.0

  -4.1

  1.7

  2.0

  2.8

  1.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.4

  1.3

  -2.8

  0.3

  -0.5

  3.1

  0.9

  Dorset

  -0.2

  9.2

  -9.2

  3.6

  -2.0

  1.5

  1.5

  Durham

  1.8

  2.8

  2.5

  4.9

  1.6

  2.9

  5.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  0.0

  6.7

  -5.9

  3.6

  3.9

  -5.8

  8.4

  Essex

  3.0

  n/a

  n/a

  0.0

  -0.1

  -5.2

  7.1

  Gloucestershire

  1.3

  5.8

  -6.7

  1.1

  -1.8

  3.4

  1.6

  Greater Manchester

  4.1

  3.2

  -2.2

  -1.0

  -2.4

  -1.9

  5.0

  Gwent

  -1.3

  1.5

  0.5

  23.7

  6.5

  3.6

  1.2

  Hampshire

  -0.2

  3.4

  0.1

  3.9

  1.7

  -0.6

  1.2

  Hertfordshire

  2.7

  12.3

  1.1

  -4.1

  1.0

  -0.6

  1.0

  Humberside

  -1.4

  2.1

  -0.5

  1.1

  0.9

  3.1

  -2.4

  Kent

  1.9

  6.9

  -3.5

  1.6

  2.1

  -2.2

  1.1

  Lancashire

  2.3

  1.7

  0.3

  1.9

  1.4

  3.0

  -1.3

  Leicestershire

  0.6

  0.5

  3.9

  5.3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lincolnshire

  1.4

  n/a

  n/a

  1.6

  3.1

  -3.1

  0.1

  Merseyside

  3.1

  1.6

  -2.5

  -5.2

  -0.3

  4.3

  -0.2

  Metropolitan Police

  -0.8

  -1.3

  1.0

  -1.6

  -4.5

  -2.3

  4.1

  Norfolk

  1.6

  3.6

  -2.4

  2.9

  2.9

  -1.5

  3.6

  North Wales

  1.0

  4.1

  -0.1

  -1.5

  0.0

  -1.8

  7.6

  North Yorkshire

  -2.3

  1.7

  -3.1

  2.0

  3.8

  2.5

  -1.1

  Northamptonshire

  1.6

  5.3

  -7.5

  0.6

  2.7

  2.2

  0.9

  Northumbria

  6.0

  8.4

  -5.1

  1.1

  0.7

  2.8

  0.1

  Nottinghamshire

  1.9

  5.6

  -3.0

  3.1

  0.0

  2.8

  -0.7

  South Wales

  0.9

  -4.8

  2.5

  -2.0

  0.5

  0.6

  3.6

  South Yorkshire

  2.5

  6.0

  1.1

  1.5

  2.8

  0.6

  -0.6

  Staffordshire

  3.0

  3.8

  -4.3

  2.5

  -4.0

  6.6

  2.7

  Suffolk

  0.5

  0.4

  -7.2

  5.5

  1.5

  0.6

  3.1

  Surrey

  2.9

  9.6

  -5.1

  -1.0

  -0.9

  0.2

  7.1

  Sussex

  1.0

  5.3

  -0.6

  5.4

  1.1

  -1.2

  -2.6

  Thames Valley Police

  4.4

  5.3

  -3.3

  0.0

  0.0

  -2.9

  7.1

  Warwickshire

  2.7

  2.3

  -9.3

  -1.6

  -1.7

  -0.2

  3.1

  West Mercia

  4.0

  3.6

  -4.6

  1.9

  1.8

  0.8

  -0.2

  West Midlands

  0.0

  2.2

  1.7

  -0.9

  1.3

  0.0

  -0.2

  West Yorkshire

  0.3

  2.4

  -0.8

  6.5

  1.6

  -4.4

  -0.5

  Wiltshire

  1.5

  6.9

  -10.9

  0.2

  2.3

  13.3

  -2.2

  Total

  1.2

  -1.1

  1.1

  0.6

  -0.5

  -0.2

  1.8

  Notes:

  1993–94 to 1998–99—CIPFA Police Statistics Actuals

  1999–2000—CIPFA Police Statistics Estimates

  Real terms increase based on Treasury GDP Deflators published on 23 December 1999

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Avon and Somerset force in each year from 1985 to 1999, giving figures on a quarterly basis from 1995 onwards; and if he will make a statement. [105094]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available is set out in the table. Since 1995 police numbers have been collected only twice a year—in March and September—so as to reduce administrative burdens on the police.

  Avon and Somerset constabulary police numbers—1985 to 1999

  Number of officers

  Year

  As at 31 March

  As at 30 September

  1985

  2,982

  —

  1986

  2,958

  —

  1987

  3,009

  —

  1988

  3,013

  —

  306W

  Avon and Somerset constabulary police numbers—1985 to 1999

  Number of officers

  Year

  As at 31 March

  As at 30 September

  1989

  3,014

  —

  1990

  3,094

  —

  1991

  3,092

  —

  1992

  3,081

  —

  1993

  3,068

  —

  1994

  3,033

  —

  1995

  3,000

  2,986

  1996

  2,981

  3,004

  1997

  2,989

  2,973

  1998

  2,976

  2,966

  1999

  2,999

  Not yet available

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of police officers(a) per head of population and (b) per notifiable

  307W
  offence, in each year from 1992 to 1999, in each English county and Metropolitan area, listing these in each case in descending order. [105096]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimates are given in the following tables. Owing to the structure of police forces, the areas quoted are police force areas rather than counties.

  1992

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  119

  Surrey

  32

  Merseyside

  31

  Metropolitan police

  30

  Wiltshire

  29

  Hertfordshire

  29

  Suffolk

  27

  Cumbria

  26

  West Mercia

  26

  North Yorkshire

  26

  Devon and Cornwall

  25

  Essex

  25

  Sussex

  25

  Dorset

  25

  Lincolnshire

  24

  Lancashire

  24

  Cheshire

  24

  Staffordshire

  22

  Warwickshire

  22

  South Yorkshire

  22

  Norfolk

  21

  West Midlands

  21

  Hampshire

  21

  Durham

  21

  Northamptonshire

  19

  Gloucestershire

  19

  Derbyshire

  19

  Kent

  19

  Thames Valley

  19

  Leicestershire

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  Bedfordshire

  18

  Greater Manchester

  18

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  Cleveland

  18

  West Yorkshire

  17

  Humberside

  16

  Northumbria

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  1993

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  147

  Merseyside

  33

  Surrey

  32

  Metropolitan police

  31

  Wiltshire

  30

  Hertfordshire

  30

  Suffolk

  29

  Cumbria

  27

  Sussex

  27

  Essex

  26

  Dorset

  25

  West Mercia

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  24

  North Yorkshire

  24

  Lancashire

  24

  Cheshire

  24

  Lincolnshire

  23

  Warwickshire

  22

  Norfolk

  22

  Hampshire

  22

  308W

  1993

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  Staffordshire

  22

  West Midlands

  21

  Durham

  21

  Northamptonshire

  20

  Derbyshire

  20

  Bedfordshire

  20

  Kent

  19

  Greater Manchester

  19

  South Yorkshire

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  Thames Valley

  19

  Cleveland

  19

  Gloucestershire

  19

  Leicestershire

  18

  Avon and Somerset

  17

  West Yorkshire

  17

  Northumbria

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  Humberside

  14

  1994

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  169

  Surrey

  36

  Merseyside

  34

  Wiltshire

  33

  Metropolitan police

  32

  Suffolk

  31

  Hertfordshire

  31

  Sussex

  28

  Essex

  28

  Cumbria

  28

  Devon and Cornwall

  27

  Norfolk

  26

  Cheshire

  25

  Lincolnshire

  25

  Lancashire

  25

  Warwickshire

  25

  West Mercia

  25

  Staffordshire

  24

  Dorset

  23

  Hampshire

  23

  West Midlands

  22

  Bedfordshire

  22

  Durham

  21

  North Yorkshire

  21

  Derbyshire

  21

  Thames Valley

  21

  Greater Manchester

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  Northamptonshire

  20

  Kent

  20

  South Yorkshire

  19

  Gloucestershire

  19

  Leicestershire

  18

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  Northumbria

  18

  Cleveland

  17

  West Yorkshire

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  Humberside

  15

  1995

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  155

  Surrey

  38

  Wiltshire

  35

  Metropolitan police

  34

  309W

  1995

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  Suffolk

  31

  Hertfordshire

  30

  Merseyside

  30

  Essex

  30

  Cumbria

  28

  Devon and Cornwall

  28

  Norfolk

  27

  Sussex

  27

  Cheshire

  26

  Warwickshire

  26

  Lancashire

  26

  West Mercia

  26

  Lincolnshire

  25

  Staffordshire

  24

  Hampshire

  24

  Dorset

  24

  Durham

  23

  West Midlands

  22

  Bedfordshire

  22

  Derbyshire

  22

  Thames Valley

  22

  Greater Manchester

  21

  Gloucestershire

  21

  North Yorkshire

  20

  Northamptonshire

  20

  Kent

  20

  South Yorkshire

  20

  Leicestershire

  20

  Avon and Somerset

  20

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  Northumbria

  19

  Cleveland

  18

  West Yorkshire

  18

  Humberside

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  1996

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  180

  Surrey

  39

  Wiltshire

  34

  Metropolitan police

  32

  Hertfordshire

  31

  Suffolk

  31

  Merseyside

  30

  Cheshire

  30

  Essex

  29

  Devon and Cornwall

  28

  Cumbria

  28

  Durham

  27

  Sussex

  26

  Lancashire

  26

  Dorset

  25

  Norfolk

  25

  Warwickshire

  25

  Hampshire

  25

  West Mercia

  25

  Lincolnshire

  24

  Staffordshire

  24

  North Yorkshire

  23

  West Midlands

  22

  Derbyshire

  22

  Bedfordshire

  22

  Northumbria

  22

  Thames Valley

  21

  Greater Manchester

  21

  Gloucestershire

  21

  Kent

  21

  Leicestershire

  20

  South Yorkshire

  20

  310W

  1996

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  Northamptonshire

  20

  West Yorkshire

  19

  Avon and Somerset

  19

  Cleveland

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  Humberside

  16

  1997

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  167

  Surrey

  42

  Hertfordshire

  35

  Wiltshire

  35

  Cheshire

  34

  Metropolitan police

  34

  Merseyside

  34

  Suffolk

  33

  Essex

  33

  Cumbria

  32

  Durham

  30

  Devon and Cornwall

  30

  Dorset

  29

  Hampshire

  28

  Sussex

  28

  Lincolnshire

  28

  Lancashire

  27

  Norfolk

  27

  North Yorkshire

  27

  West Mercia

  27

  Kent

  27

  Northumbria

  26

  Warwickshire

  26

  West Midlands

  25

  Staffordshire

  25

  Derbyshire

  24

  South Yorkshire

  24

  Leicestershire

  24

  Gloucestershire

  24

  Thames Valley

  23

  Bedfordshire

  23

  Cleveland

  23

  Greater Manchester

  23

  Northamptonshire

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  West Yorkshire

  21

  Avon and Somerset

  21

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  Humberside

  17

  Note:

  Based on police officers at 31 March

  Year ending March 1999

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  London (City of)

  129

  Surrey

  46

  Hertfordshire

  37

  Durham

  35

  Wiltshire

  35

  Cheshire

  35

  Suffolk

  35

  Metropolitan police

  34

  Essex

  33

  Devon and Cornwall

  33

  Merseyside

  32

  Cumbria

  32

  Lancashire

  31

  Hampshire

  30

  311W

  Year ending March 1999

  Police force

  Officers per 1,000 offences

  West Mercia

  29

  Dorset

  29

  Kent

  29

  Northumbria

  29

  Lincolnshire

  29

  North Yorkshire

  28

  Norfolk

  27

  Staffordshire

  26

  West Midlands

  26

  Sussex

  26

  South Yorkshire

  25

  Warwickshire

  25

  Gloucestershire

  25

  Leicestershire

  24

  Derbyshire

  24

  Bedfordshire

  24

  Thames Valley

  23

  Avon and Somerset

  23

  Cleveland

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  Northamptonshire

  20

  Greater Manchester

  20

  West Yorkshire

  20

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  Humberside

  17

  Notes:

  1. Based on police officers at 31 March 1999

  2. New counting rules and offence coverage for recorded crime were introduced on 1 April 1998

  3. Figures are based on an estimate of offences which would have been recorded had the old counting rules been in place

  1992

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  20,460.9

  Metropolitan police

  387.8

  Merseyside

  320.1

  Greater Manchester

  272.6

  Cleveland

  267.5

  West Midlands

  265.5

  West Yorkshire

  245.7

  Northumbria

  241.9

  Cumbria

  239.6

  Humberside

  235.8

  South Yorkshire

  232.1

  Durham

  231.7

  Nottinghamshire

  229.3

  Lancashire

  229.2

  Surrey

  228.3

  Gloucestershire

  220.9

  Avon and Somerset

  217.4

  Wiltshire

  217.3

  Sussex

  210.6

  Staffordshire

  209.1

  Leicestershire

  205.5

  Warwickshire

  205.1

  Bedfordshire

  204.1

  Lincolnshire

  202.3

  Kent

  201.5

  Hertfordshire

  201.1

  Northamptonshire

  199.6

  Essex

  197.7

  Dorset

  195.8

  Cheshire

  195.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  193.5

  North Yorkshire

  192.5

  Hampshire

  191.5

  Thames Valley

  190.2

  Suffolk

  189.2

  312W

  1992

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  Norfolk

  188.4

  Cambridgeshire

  188.1

  West Mercia

  188.1

  Derbyshire

  182.8

  1993

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  20,004.8

  Metropolitan police

  378.2

  Merseyside

  322.1

  Greater Manchester

  274.7

  West Midlands

  264.4

  Cleveland

  264.1

  Northumbria

  247.9

  Cumbria

  244.5

  West Yorkshire

  241.6

  South Yorkshire

  232.9

  Humberside

  231.6

  Nottinghamshire

  228.1

  Durham

  228.0

  Lancashire

  227.5

  Wiltshire

  221.2

  Surrey

  220.4

  Bedfordshire

  219.4

  Avon and Somerset

  214.1

  Gloucestershire

  213.0

  Sussex

  210.7

  Warwickshire

  208.5

  Staffordshire

  207.6

  Kent

  204.8

  Northamptonshire

  204.4

  Lincolnshire

  203.0

  Hertfordshire

  201.9

  Leicestershire

  201.8

  Essex

  198.9

  Cheshire

  197.5

  Dorset

  197.1

  Thames Valley

  194.6

  Derbyshire

  194.0

  North Yorkshire

  193.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  192.4

  Hampshire

  191.7

  Suffolk

  189.8

  Norfolk

  189.6

  Cambridgeshire

  189.2

  West Mercia

  187.2

  1994

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  23,092.8

  Metropolitan police

  375.0

  Merseyside

  324.6

  Greater Manchester

  270.7

  West Midlands

  266.6

  Cleveland

  255.2

  Northumbria

  249.6

  West Yorkshire

  241.0

  Cumbria

  239.5

  South Yorkshire

  231.8

  Humberside

  231.3

  Durham

  227.8

  Nottinghamshire

  227.1

  Lancashire

  224.3

  Wiltshire

  218.2

  Surrey

  216.8

  Bedfordshire

  214.5

  Gloucestershire

  214.1

  Warwickshire

  212.6

  313W

  1994

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  210.5

  Sussex

  210.0

  Staffordshire

  209.9

  Kent

  204.5

  Leicestershire

  202.3

  Lincolnshire

  201.9

  Hertfordshire

  198.8

  Northamptonshire

  198.3

  Essex

  197.9

  Cheshire

  196.7

  Thames Valley

  196.3

  Dorset

  195.3

  Derbyshire

  192.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  191.7

  Hampshire

  190.9

  Norfolk

  189.7

  West Mercia

  186.6

  Suffolk

  186.4

  Cambridgeshire

  186.4

  North Yorkshire

  182.3

  1995

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  22,559.3

  Metropolitan police

  370.4

  Merseyside

  323.3

  Greater Manchester

  272.9

  West Midlands

  266.5

  Cleveland

  257.0

  Northumbria

  249.5

  West Yorkshire

  240.3

  Cumbria

  238.1

  South Yorkshire

  232.7

  Humberside

  229.4

  Lancashire

  226.1

  Nottinghamshire

  225.5

  Durham

  222.7

  Surrey

  217.8

  Wiltshire

  216.3

  Gloucestershire

  213.8

  Staffordshire

  211.7

  Bedfordshire

  208.8

  Avon and Somerset

  207.3

  Warwickshire

  205.2

  Sussex

  203.6

  Kent

  202.4

  Leicestershire

  202.0

  Hertfordshire

  200.6

  Lincolnshire

  199.4

  Cheshire

  198.8

  Essex

  196.2

  Northamptonshire

  195.3

  Dorset

  193.0

  Thames Valley

  192.6

  Hampshire

  189.5

  Derbyshire

  189.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  188.5

  Cambridgeshire

  184.7

  West Mercia

  184.5

  Suffolk

  184.3

  Norfolk

  182.3

  North Yorkshire

  180.1

  1996

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London(City of)

  16,637.6

  Metropolitan police

  366.8

  Merseyside

  307.5

  314W

  1996

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  West Midlands

  271.9

  Greater Manchester

  269.1

  Northumbria

  254.4

  Cleveland

  253.6

  West Yorkshire

  244.4

  South Yorkshire

  235.4

  Durham

  230.5

  Humberside

  229.5

  Cumbria

  227.5

  Nottinghamshire

  224.8

  Lancashire

  222.7

  Surrey

  212.3

  Sussex

  212.2

  Staffordshire

  209.5

  Leicestershire

  208.1

  Bedfordshire

  207.6

  Wiltshire

  207.4

  Gloucestershire

  206.1

  Cheshire

  204.8

  Avon and Somerset

  204.7

  Kent

  201.8

  Hertfordshire

  200.7

  Warwickshire

  197.3

  Northamptonshire

  193.8

  Hampshire

  193.4

  Essex

  192.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  189.5

  Lincolnshire

  188.9

  Dorset

  187.9

  Derbyshire

  184.8

  Norfolk

  182.3

  North Yorkshire

  182.2

  Thames Valley

  182.1

  West Mercia

  180.6

  Cambridgeshire

  180.0

  Suffolk

  175.2

  1997

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  16,514.9

  Metropolitan police

  355.9

  Merseyside

  296.4

  West Midlands

  269.7

  Greater Manchester

  268.5

  Cleveland

  261.0

  Northumbria

  255.6

  West Yorkshire

  247.4

  South Yorkshire

  242.3

  Durham

  240.3

  Cumbria

  233.2

  Humberside

  230.0

  Lancashire

  227.7

  Nottinghamshire

  225.1

  Leicestershire

  211.1

  Sussex

  211.0

  Kent

  210.2

  Staffordshire

  209.3

  Cheshire

  209.1

  Surrey

  208.9

  Gloucestershire

  204.9

  Hertfordshire

  204.9

  Avon and Somerset

  204.2

  Bedfordshire

  200.4

  Hampshire

  198.2

  Essex

  196.6

  Northamptonshire

  196.3

  Lincolnshire

  195.5

  Wiltshire

  195.4

  Dorset

  189.2

  Cambridgeshire

  187.6

  315W

  1997

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  Derbyshire

  186.9

  Devon and Cornwall

  185.8

  Warwickshire

  185.7

  Norfolk

  185.4

  West Mercia

  183.1

  North Yorkshire

  183.1

  Thames Valley

  180.5

  Suffolk

  179.6

  1998

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  15,924.5

  Metropolitan police

  345.0

  Merseyside

  296.8

  West Midlands

  270.8

  Greater Manchester

  269.8

  Cleveland

  266.0

  Northumbria

  262.7

  Durham

  249.1

  West Yorkshire

  244.4

  South Yorkshire

  243.9

  Cumbria

  237.2

  Lancashire

  228.6

  Humberside

  227.9

  Nottinghamshire

  225.1

  Staffordshire

  217.1

  Leicestershire

  213.8

  Kent

  208.7

  Cheshire

  208.4

  Surrey

  207.1

  Sussex

  206.3

  Avon and Somerset

  202.8

  Hertfordshire

  201.5

  Hampshire

  199.1

  Gloucestershire

  198.4

  Bedfordshire

  196.5

  Wiltshire

  194.9

  Essex

  193.4

  Lincolnshire

  193.4

  Northamptonshire

  193.4

  Dorset

  192.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  192.0

  North Yorkshire

  186.1

  Warwickshire

  184.6

  Derbyshire

  184.2

  Norfolk

  184.0

  Cambridgeshire

  183.6

  Thames Valley

  182.8

  West Mercia

  179.8

  Suffolk

  179.2

  1999

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  London (City of)

  14,862.7

  Metropolitan police

  342.4

  Merseyside

  297.9

  West Midlands

  278.3

  Northumbria

  268.5

  Greater Manchester

  264.8

  Durham

  257.7

  Cleveland

  254.7

  South Yorkshire

  242.8

  West Yorkshire

  236.1

  Cumbria

  228.8

  Lancashire

  227.7

  Humberside

  223.2

  Nottinghamshire

  215.5

  316W

  1999

  Police force

  Officers per 100,000 population

  Leicestershire

  214.5

  Surrey

  211.9

  Staffordshire

  211.0

  Cheshire

  210.8

  Kent

  204.4

  Avon and Somerset

  202.9

  Hertfordshire

  197.8

  Gloucestershire

  197.4

  Hampshire

  197.1

  Wiltshire

  192.0

  Sussex

  191.4

  Essex

  189.8

  Bedfordshire

  188.5

  Northamptonshire

  186.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  186.1

  Dorset

  186.0

  Lincolnshire

  184.0

  Derbyshire

  182.2

  North Yorkshire

  181.2

  Warwickshire

  180.3

  West Mercia

  179.8

  Thames Valley

  179.7

  Cambridgeshire

  178.9

  Suffolk

  178.5

  Norfolk

  176.4

  Notes:

  1. Based on police officers at 31 March

  2. City of London figures are based on resident population

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in South Somerset in each year from 1995 to 1999; and if he will make a statement. [105095]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am informed by the Chief Constable that South Somerset falls within the East Somerset Territorial Division. The force is able to provide details of police strength for this Division only from 1997 following restructuring. These are set out as follows.

  East Somerset Division

  Police officer numbers

  April 1997

  230

  April 1998

  243

  April 1999

  241

  January 2000

  236

  Chechens (Asylum)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been received from people from Chechnya, and how many Chechens have arrived in the UK, since the start of hostilities in Chechnya. [104906]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on people from Chechnya is not separately identified from Russian nationals and therefore the information requested is not available.

  Mike Tyson
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons it has been decided to allow Mike Tyson to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [105673]
  317W
  Mr. Straw
  Mike Tyson arrived in the United Kingdom on Sunday 16 January and was given leave to enter until 30 January, for the purposes of the scheduled contest on 29 January. He was admitted under an instruction to immigration officers which I announced on 13 January and which was made under schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971. Given the high profile nature of this case and the complex issues that it raised, I took the view that it would have been invidious for an individual immigration officer to have to weigh the competing considerations involved.

  I was advised that the relevant Immigration Rule, which has been in place in this form since 1994, provides that normally persons with convictions for offences which in this country attract a maximum sentence of 12 months or more imprisonment are to be refused leave to enter, but leaves a discretion to allow entry if there are strong compassionate circumstances or the case is otherwise exceptional. I considered representations sent by Mr. Frank Warren against the background of this advice and concluded that there were no strong compassionate circumstances but there were other exceptional circumstances in this case which justified granting leave to enter to Mr. Tyson.

  I took account, in particular, of evidence presented to me in these representations of the effects on small providers of ancillary services, some of whom could have been facing bankruptcy because they have invested heavily in the contest and who are innocent third parties. I also took account of the effect on business in the Manchester area and the inconvenience and disappointment of the many thousand members of the public who have purchased tickets for the fight in good faith, if entry had been refused and the contest cancelled at this notice.

  Further, I was not satisfied that in practice this Immigration Rule has had consistent outcomes in the past; and took that into account in determining whether this case was exceptional. Persons seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom are not routinely asked whether they have relevant previous convictions on the landing card or otherwise (though they would be so asked if from countries requiring a pre-entry visa).

  I have, therefore, asked for a full review to be carried out of the Rules and practice relating to admission of persons with previous convictions. I will report the outcome of this review to Parliament when it is completed.

  Police-escorted Wide Loads
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) businesses and (b) the economy of the movement of police-escorted wide loads between 7am and 7pm. [105021]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such estimates have been made.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many journeys have been made in each of the last five years by police-escorted wide loads. [105020]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  318W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require police-escorted wide loads to travel during the night. [105019]

  Mr. Boateng
  The timing of abnormal load movements is an operational matter for the chief officers of police of the forces concerned. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has issued guidance to forces which allow night time movement of abnormal loads on motorways and linking dual carriageways. This is subject to individual chief officers of police being satisfied with the road safety of such movements. ACPO policy is to allow and facilitate the movement of abnormal loads on motorways at all times.

  Crime Statistics (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest crime figures for Lancashire. [104154]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest figures, covering the 12 months to September 1999, will be published tomorrow.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of illegal immigrants who arrived in the UK concealed in lorries in 1999. [104186]

  Mrs. Roche
  During the period January to November 1999, the Immigration Service dealt with 14,612 cases of illegal entrants. This figure comprises all those who have concealed themselves in vehicles (including lorries) or who have otherwise avoided the control. Separate figures for those concealed in lorries are not available.

  Emergency Vehicles (Black Boxes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received about police forces in EU member states which have installed black boxes in(a) police and (b) other emergency vehicles. [104844]

  Mr. Boateng
  We understand that the police service in Berlin uses black boxes, but are not aware of any European Union member state other than the United Kingdom in which other emergency vehicles have black boxes.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have installed black boxes in police vehicles. [104845]

  Mr. Boateng
  No forces have installed black boxes in police vehicles that are currently in operational use. The Metropolitan police force intends installing black box recording devices in immediate response and armed response vehicles this year.

  Police Pursuit Driving
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the recommendations of the Association of Chief Police Officers' report of September 1998 on police pursuit driving have been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [104846]
  319W
  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that most forces have adopted the majority of the 33 recommendations in the Association of Chief Police Officers report "Police Pursuit Driver Training". The recommendations which had to be taken forward on a national basis are well advanced. National standardised police pursuit driver training courses will be available by early summer 2000.

  Police Station Staff (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) maximum and (b) minimum number of (i) police officers and (ii) civilian employees on duty in each of the police stations in the Hillingdon Division of the Metropolitan Police Service on (1) 31 December 1999 and (2) 1 January 2000. [105183]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the following information about staff deployed in Hillingdon Division:(1) 31 December 1999

  144 police officers were on duty for the 24-hour period starting 0600. Of these, the following numbers of constables were dedicated to patrolling their specific station areas, with the remainder performing pan-divisional duties:

  Ruislip: 17

  Uxbridge: 13

  West Drayton: 14

  Hayes: 22

  (2) 1 January 2000

  109 police officers were on duty for the 24-hour period starting 0600. Of these, the following numbers of constables were dedicated to patrolling their specific station areas, with the remainder performing pan-divisional duties:

  Ruislip: 20

  Uxbridge: 16

  West Drayton: 17

  Hayes: 23

  On both dates, 13 civilians were deployed, all at Uxbridge police station.

  The numbers of staff on duty on each date were above the normal minimum strengths for response policing.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 18 August 1999, acknowledged on 26 August 1999 (reference 16888/99), regarding allegations relating to experimental psychological research. [105154]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am extremely sorry for the delay in dealing with the hon. Gentleman's letter which, having been received, was mislaid within my Department. He kindly sent a duplicate earlier this month. The matters raised by his constituent are now being dealt with by the Secretary of State for Health, who will reply to him directly in the very near future.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will make inquiries regarding the delay in the hon. Member for Walsall, North 320W
  being informed by the Police Complaints Authority about a case concerning a constituent (ref. (D) 1999 100345). [104813]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the Police Complaints Authority received the report of the police investigation of this case on 26 November last year, later than the authority originally envisaged. The Authority expects to review the case within the next two weeks and will then write to the complainant with its conclusions, copying the letter to my hon. Friend.

  Acquittals
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what proportion of contested cases triable either way, which were tried in the crown court for each of the last five years where data are available, the defendant was acquitted(a) by the jury after deliberation and (b) on the direction of the judge; [104232]

  (2) in what proportion of contested cases triable either way, which were tried in the magistrates' court for each of the last five years where data are available, the defendant was acquitted. [104231]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No regular statistics are collected on this. However, there is some information available from the baseline data collected by the Home Office in 1998 for the evaluation of the pilot schemes to reduce delay in the criminal justice system. In a sample of contested trials for either-way offences in the six pilot areas, 40 per cent. of defendants were acquitted by the jury and 5 per cent. were acquitted on the direction of the judge in the Crown Court. The acquittal rate in the magistrates court was 32 per cent.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have applied for funding for recruitment from the Crime Fighting Fund; and what level of funding has been bid for in each case. [104375]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Forty three forces have bid for a total of 8,220 officers over the three year period of the Crime Fighting Fund Recruitment Scheme. The total number of officers bid for exceeds the 5,000 officers for which funding will be available under the scheme. We are currently assessing the bids to determine whether they meet the criteria laid down in the bidding guidelines which were issued to forces and a copy placed in the Library of the House on 2 December 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peru
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Peruvian Government in support of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Commission and encourage the pardoning of innocent prisoners. [104399]

  Mr. Battle
  We have made a number of representations to the Peruvian authorities in support of the Ad Hoc Commission on Human Rights. This issue
  321W
  was raised in November 1998 with the Peruvian Ambassador to London, when the Ad Hoc Commission's mandate was last up for renewal. More recently, FCO officials discussed this with the Deputy Ombudsman of Peru, Dr. Gino Costa, when he visited the UK in November 1999 on an FCO Sponsored Visit. Since March 1998, we have contributed £141,960 from the FCO's Human Rights Project Fund to assist the Ombudsman's office and the Ad Hoc Commission with their important work. This funding helped to ensure that the Ad Hoc Commission could discharge its responsibilities in an effective manner for the duration of its mandate, which expired on 31 December 1999.

  Responsibility for the recommendation of Presidential pardons has been passed on to the National Human Rights Council at the Ministry of Justice. On 25 December 1999, President Fujimori granted pardons to 12 more people imprisoned for alleged terrorism offences. According to the Ombudsman, 48 of the Ad Hoc Commission's recommendations for pardon have yet to be approved. The British Embassy in Lima will continue to work closely with the Ombudsman and provide practical support for its work and research.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the measures taken by the United Arab Emirates authorities to prevent the trafficking in and employment of children under 14 years of age. [104413]

  Mr. Hain
  We spoke recently to the UAE authorities about this issue. They assured us that the existing legislation banning jockeys under the age of 15 was being enforced and that offenders would be prosecuted. This should discourage the previous practice of employing underage jockeys brought into the UAE from abroad.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the UAE Government in respect of its compliance with the ban on child jockeys. [104832]

  Mr. Hain
  We have recently spoken to the UAE authorities about this issue. They have assured us that they are enforcing the existing legislation banning jockeys under the age of 15 and will prosecute offenders.

  Drugs Trade (Latin America)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international action his Department has taken to combat the drugs trade, with particular reference to drugs from Latin America. [104453]

  Mr. Battle
  The FCO co-ordinates the UK's international counter-drugs activities, to reduce the production of Class A drugs and their trafficking to the UK and Europe. During the financial year 1998–99 the FCO spent £5,900,000 on projects in support of these aims. On 322W
  5 January I announced a contribution of £2.286 million towards a range of projects under the UN International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP). This consists of:

  £470,000 to strengthen the counter-drugs capabilities of law enforcement agencies in Bulgaria, Romania and Macedonia.

  £216,000 to support a Law Enforcement Adviser to UNDCP.

  £350,000 to a precursor control project and other law enforcement measures in Bolivia.

  £350,000 to support an integrated monitoring system of illicit cultivation in Columbia.

  £500,000 to protect to monitor coca leaf production in Peru.

  £100,000 to phase II of a project to promote the regional co-ordination of drug control activities in the Caribbean.

  Up to £300,000 for UNDCP's strategic studies of the Afghanistan opium trade and the annual Afghanistan opium poppy survey.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to encourage the Sudan to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention. [104464]

  Mr. Hain
  Sudan acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on 24 May 1999. It has not yet submitted its declarations as required under the Convention to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Until it does so the OPCW or States Parties is unable to advise or encourage the Sudan on implementation. The UK along with EU partners are seeking clarification of the Sudanese accession statement as submitted to the UN.

  Morocco
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the Kingdom of Morocco. [104430]

  Mr. Hain
  I made a productive and rewarding visit to Morocco in December of last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been invited to visit and will take this up when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Iran's capability to produce(a) nuclear and (b) chemical and biological weapons. [104880]

  Mr. Hain
  In conjunction with other Government Departments, we regularly assess the status of efforts by a number of countries to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Such assessments draw heavily on intelligence sources and we are therefore unable to comment further.

  Iran is a Non-Nuclear-Weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. We continue to encourage Iran to respect these treaties and to comply fully with its obligations under them.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask Iran officially to recognise Israel. [104879]
  323W
  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign Secretary had lengthy discussions with the Iranian Foreign Minister about the situation in the Middle East and the peace process in the course of Dr. Kharrazi's recent visit. We pressed him for Iran to take a more positive position on the peace process. Iranian recognition of Israel does not look likely for the moment.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received that persons executed for criminal offences in Iran are political dissidents. [104780]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have on a number of occasions reminded the Iranian Government of our opposition to the death penalty, and our concern that it be used with utmost restraint. Our information is that the majority of executions in Iran are for drug-related offences. We and our EU partners have raised with Iran our concern over particular death sentences, notably against members of the Baha'i community and against students involved in the July 1999 demonstrations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to Iran concerning its attempts to obtain fissile material and technology for weapons development. [104784]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly raise with the Iranians our concerns over reports that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, most recently during last week's visit to the UK by Dr. Kamal Kharrazi, Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The visit resulted in a Joint Declaration, signed by Dr. Kharrazi and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which the UK and Iran agreed to continue mutual co-operation to reinforce international efforts aimed at eliminating weapons of mass destruction and reiterated the importance of implementing the international conventions to which both have adhered, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Iranian Government to grant equal opportunities in education and employment to Baha'i, Christian and Jewish Iranians. [104781]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners regularly raise our concerns over certain Iranian human rights policies with the Iranian authorities. The EU sponsored United Nations General Assembly resolution on human rights in Iran adopted on 18 November featured prominently international concerns about treatment of religious minorities. The Iranian authorities are fully aware that we and our EU partners consider persecution on religious grounds to be unacceptable.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government regarding the foreign policy of Iran. [104769]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners regularly discuss policy towards Iran, with the US as well as matters relating to Iranian foreign policy, as I did in Washington last month.
  324W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports he has received in the last two years regarding the activities of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran. [104998]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Embassy in Tehran provides comprehensive reporting on the full range of public policy and other issues in Iran, including those relating to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of people currently awaiting extradition from Iran to the United Kingdom. [105005]

  Mr. Hain
  There is no extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Iran. We are not aware of anybody facing extradition from Iran to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Iranian Government concerning the(a) financing, (b) equipping, (c) provision of training locations and (d) provision of refuge from extradition to Hamas, Hezbollah and Pale stinian Islamic Jihad by the Iranian Government. [105004]

  Mr. Hain
  Iranian opposition to the Middle East peace process and support for groups that oppose the peace process featured prominently in the discussions between the Foreign Secretary and his Iranian counterpart during his visit from 10–12 January. The Iranian authorities are fully aware of the importance that we and our EU partners attach to the Middle East peace process.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to Iran calling for the trial of the 13 Iranian Jews accused of spying to be held in public. [104790]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have repeatedly stressed to the Iranian authorities the importance we attach to this issue. We have also stressed our belief that those detained should either be released or granted a speedy, fair and open trial. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both raised this issue with Dr. Kharrazi during his visit from 10–12 January. Dr. Kharrazi said that those detained would receive a fair trial with access to lawyers and their families. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to the Iranian Foreign Minister during his recent visit to the UK regarding(a) human rights in Iran, including the human rights of the Jewish community and (b) support for the Middle Eastern peace process; and if he will make a statement. [104905]

  Mr. Hain
  Human rights and Iranian attitudes to the Middle East peace process featured prominently in the discussions between the Foreign Secretary and his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kamal Kharrazi during the visit to London on 10–12 January.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the EU arms embargo on Indonesia. [105843]
  325W
  Mr. Hain
  The EU Common Position of 16 September 1999 imposing restrictive measures, including an arms embargo, against Indonesia for a fixed period of four months, expired on 17 January 2000. Following the expiry of the embargo all applications for the export of equipment on the Military List to Indonesia will be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the national criteria on arms exports and the EU Code of Conduct.

  The UK, together with our EU partners, continues to monitor closely the performance of the new Indonesian administration and in particular the actions of the Indonesian military.

  Libyan Scud Missiles
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) his office were first informed of the interception of Libyan scud missile parts at Gatwick Airport. [105013]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I am updated regularly on Libya's ambitions and efforts to acquire weapons technology. I am not briefed on the details of individual HMCE operations nor would I expect to be. I was given a full account of this specific operation following the disclosure on 9 January of some details of it to the media.

  I took our concerns about Libyan weapons programmes into account when reviewing policy on Libya before my statement in the House on 7 July 1999.

  In May 1999 HMCE initiated their inquiry with regard to this consignment. FCO officials were aware of the grounds for suspicion. HMCE sought the assistance of FCO officials on 16 June in pursuing their investigation with the Maltese authorities. MOD officials inspected the consignment on 13 July. FCO officials received confirmation on 29 July that the contents were consistent with Scud parts. Libya has possessed since the 1970s a number of Soviet-supplied Scud B missiles with a range limited to a maximum of 300km. The parts seized at Gatwick could be applicable to the Scud B or other Scud derivatives, but would not have enabled Libya to extend the range of its existing Scud missile arsenal.

  I congratulate HMCE on their vigilance in successfully detaining this shipment.

  North Korea
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status and future of diplomatic relations with North Korea. [105016]

  Mr. Battle
  At present, the United Kingdom is not planning to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea. We actively seek continued dialogue with North Korea and continue to press North Korea for progress on issues of international concern, such as missile proliferation and human rights abuses. Our future stance will largely depend on North Korea's willingness to address these long-standing concerns.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken 326W
  by British diplomatic representatives at the United Nations towards developing a strategy for peace in Chechnya. [104909]

  Mr. Vaz
  British diplomatic representatives at the UN have contributed to informal consultations of Security Council members on Chechnya, particularly the humanitarian aspects. Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, has blocked any formal discussion or action on Chechnya.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning their bombing campaign in Chechnya. [104903]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have repeatedly raised with the Russians our concerns about their bombing campaign in Chechnya. Most recently the Prime Minister raised this with Mr. Putin when they spoke on 20 December and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed it during telephone calls with Foreign Minister Ivanov on 31 December and 11 January.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sources of information he has on the effect of the Russian bombardment of Chechnya. [105025]

  Mr. Vaz
  Independent reliable sources of information on the effect of Russian actions in Chechnya are scarce. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses a wide range of material to assess the situation. This comes from diplomatic, media, NGO and other sources.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish recent representations he has received concerning Government policy toward Russian action in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [104907]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have received representations on Russian actions in Chechnya from a wide number of sources including many letters from the public, from NGOs and from Members of both Houses.

  It would be impractical to publish all of these, but the issues raised were well covered in the debates that have taken place in both Houses.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made statements in the past on the Government's position on Chechnya, most recently on 7 December, and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what NATO observation has taken place of the hostilities in Chechnya. [104910]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no direct NATO involvement in Chechnya. But NATO regularly assesses the situation there and frequent discussions take place among member states in the North Atlantic Council.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by(a) Diplomatic Service officials and (b) Ministers with

  327W
  elected representatives of the Chechen people since the commencement of hostilities in Chechnya; and which Chechen representatives were involved. [104904]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have not met Chechen representatives. FCO officials had a meeting with two Chechen parliamentarians, Mr. Idigov and Mr. Magomedov, on 15 December to hear their views on the situation in Chechnya.

  Classified Documents
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses to judge whether an author should be permitted access to classified material. [104707]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The FCO follows Cabinet Office guidance on access to records. It does not give access to authors unless their intended publication is commissioned/sponsored or approved by Departments, and is seen to be research from which the FCO will benefit, and can be justified as being in the public interest and resources are available. Authors are normally cleared to the appropriate security level before any access is given.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who authorised the disclosure of information, contained in the book by Alan Judd, entitled, The Quest for C: Mansfield Cumming and the Founding of the Secret Service; and if he will make a statement. [104708]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The disclosure of information in Mr. Judd's biography of Mansfield Cumming was made in accordance with an official authorisation given by SIS under section 7 (3)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and as defined in section 7 (5) of that Act.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 7 December regarding a constituent (ref. GV100/SG801). [104814]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Visa Correspondence Unit replied to my hon. Friend, the member for Walsall, North, on my behalf on 12 January 2000.

  UK Embassies (Commerce)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the value of business(a) directly and (b) indirectly won by the commercial departments of (i) UK embassies and consulates in EU member states and (ii) the UK embassy and consulates in the USA in each of the last five years. [105286]

  Mr. Battle
  The most recent independent report on commercial services provided by British diplomatic posts overseas was produced by the National Audit Office (NAO) in 1996. This report, which covered four countries in south east Asia, noted that the seven services which the NAO examined helped generate an estimated £345 million of additional business for British companies in 1994, at a cost of £4.5 million.
  328W
  British Trade International was set up in 1999 to combine in one organisation the trade promotion work of the FCO and the DTI. British Trade International has identified 15 target markets, including Western Europe and the USA. Although we do not carry out quantitative assessments of the value of business won, we commission research from an independent research company, which shows an average 90 per cent. overall satisfaction rate in 1998 among customers of the commercial services provided by overseas posts worldwide.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 132W, on embassy costs, for what reasons the embassies in Rome and Bonn spend 9 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively, on commercial work. [105255]

  Mr. Hain
  Commercial work in both Italy and Germany is concentrated in their commercial centres, such as Milan and Dusseldorf, rather than their capital cities.

  Rome accounts for 23 per cent. of commercial work carried out in Italy and Bonn 3 per cent. in Germany.

  Embassy Running Costs
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 132W, on embassy running costs, if he will break down the percentages listed under other activities. [105254]

  Mr. Hain
  The 'Other Activities' listed in the previous answer are made up of the following: (1) Economic, (2) Aid Administration, (3) Consular, (4) Work for other Government Departments, (5) Administration and Security and (6) Miscellaneous.

  The percentages are broken down as follows:

  Percentage

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  European Union

  Vienna

  2

  0

  3

  5

  43

  0

  Brussels

  8

  0

  12

  0

  10

  1

  Copenhagen

  4

  0

  4

  0

  27

  1

  Dublin

  3

  0

  5

  0

  37

  3

  Helsinki

  2

  0

  5

  4

  28

  2

  Paris

  6

  0

  8

  1

  31

  13

  Bonn

  19

  0

  0

  1

  43

  10

  Athens

  10

  0

  8

  2

  38

  4

  Rome

  7

  4

  7

  2

  40

  8

  Luxembourg

  Cy

  5

  0

  5

  0

  37

  2

  The Hague

  1

  0

  1

  1

  26

  19

  Lisbon

  2

  0

  12

  2

  25

  6

  Madrid

  5

  0

  10

  0

  33

  12

  Stockholm

  3

  0

  3

  4

  23

  1

  USA

  Washington

  DC

  4

  2

  7

  3

  37

  11

  Miscellaneous includes such things as Science and Technology, Agriculture, Culture and Labour.

  It is not possible to break Miscellaneous down to its constituent parts.

WALES

  Child Abuse
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Waterhouse report into abuse in North Wales children's homes will be published. [105099]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I shall publish the report of the North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry as soon as possible.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public bodies to which he makes appointments. [103052]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I make one appointment to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.

  In addition, the Secretary of State for Wales has power under their Royal Charters to make appointments to a number of public bodies which operate in relation to matters for which responsibility has transferred to the Assembly. Those bodies are considering whether their Royal Charters should be amended to transfer these powers to the Assembly, but that process is not yet complete.

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to increase the productivity and reduce the running costs of his Department. [103841]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into existence on 1 July 1999 following devolution in Wales. The planned complement of staff has not yet been recruited but we are working to ensure that our systems maximise productivity and effectiveness.

  Theatres (Funding)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss National Lottery funding of theatre companies in Wales. [100199]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State meets the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on a regular basis. National Lottery funding of theatre companies in Wales is not the responsibility of either my office or the Department for Culture Media and Sport, but is a matter for the relevant distributor in Wales.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that all those pensioners entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee take it up. [104600]

  Mr. Rooker
  An announcement of our plans to encourage pensioners to take-up their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee will be made shortly.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy that, following the introduction of the State Second Pension, all employees below state pension age who have not contracted out of the state scheme will earn entitlements under the rules for the State Second Pension rather than SERPS; and if this is the assumption which underlies his estimates of the distributional impact of the reform. [104687]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following the introduction of State Second Pension, all employees below State Pension age, who have paid Class 1 National Insurance Contributions on earnings at or above the Lower Earnings Limit and who have not contracted out of the State scheme, will accrue entitlement to a second pension under the rules for the State Second Pension. Any SERPS entitlement they have already accrued will be preserved. So when a person reaches State Pension age they will receive, in addition to their basic Retirement Pension, a second pension made up of any preserved SERPS plus entitlement under State Second Pension.

  State Second Pension will reform SERPS so that those with low earnings will get much more additional pension. All those earning between £3,432 (the annual Lower Earnings Limit) and £9,500 will accrue at least twice as much entitlement under State Second Pension than they would have done under SERPS. The highest proportionate gains will go to those on the lowest earnings.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of backdating the State Second Pension to(a) 1978, (b) 1981, (c) 1986, (d) 1992 and (e) 1998 for carers in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance. [105251]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the costs which would result if the state second pension were backdated to(a) 1978, (b) 1981, (c) 1986, (d) 1992 and (e) 1998 for carers of ill, elderly or disabled relatives in receipt of Home Responsibilities Protection. [105252]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Home Responsibilities Protection can currently be claimed at any time up to State Pension age for qualifying periods since 1978. Since only very small numbers have so far claimed Home Responsibilities Protection for caring for a sick or disabled person, any estimate based on our usual 1 per cent. sampling method would not be reliable.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 16 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104486]
  331W
  Mr. Rooker
  The National Asset Register published in November 1997 showed the assets held by the Department, its agencies and associated public bodies to be 195 freehold properties, 54 historic leasehold properties, 59,500 personal computers, 24,400 printers and 2,853 vehicles.

  The Department's freehold and historic leasehold properties were transferred to the private sector as part of two Private Finance Initiative deals. On 8 January 1998 the Department transferred the six properties in the Newcastle Estate (Newcastle Longbenton, Gosforth Broadway West, Newcastle Ponteland Road, Washington Emerson House, Newcastle Tyneview Park and Washington Durham House) to the Newcastle Estate Partnership. The Department did not receive a cash sum but will be charged rentals at a reduced rate for the period of the contract. On 1 April 1998 the remainder of the Departmental estate was transferred as part of the Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate (PRIME). The Department received cash consideration of £250 million. In addition, the sale of vehicles in the period up to the end of January 1999 realised an estimated £2,223,458.

  Following the transfer of properties, the Department no longer holds fixed assets of significant value. In the period from the beginning of February 1999 to the end of December 1999, the Department sold a small number of low value items such as personal computers and printers. In addition, sales of vehicles realised an estimated £794,998.

  The estimated total cash raised from such sales to date is therefore £253,018,456.

  Stakeholder Pension Credits
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the Exchequer of providing credits to a stakeholder pension for a parent with a child under the age of five years who stays at home to look after the child; [104873]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the Exchequer of providing credits to a stakeholder pension for someone not in employment who looks after a dependent relative. [104874]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have no plans to provide credits to stakeholder pension schemes. Under our proposals for State Second Pension qualifying carers will be treated as if they had earnings of £9,500. This will, for the first time, give carers the chance to build up a second pension. A qualifying carer will be:

  someone receiving Child Benefit for a child under six;

  someone entitled to Invalid Care Allowance; or

  someone given Home Responsibilities Protection because they were caring for a disabled person.

  Assuming State Second Pension is introduced in 2002, the estimated gross costs of giving carers of disabled people and those receiving Child Benefit for a child aged under six State Second Pension entitlement are shown in the following table.
  332W

  2010

  2020

  2030

  2040

  2050

  Carers of disabled

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.7

  Carers of child under six

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.7

  2.0

  Total

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  1.1

  2.7

  Notes:

  1. Figures, supplied by the Government Actuary's Department, are in £ billion at1999–2000 prices. They make no allowance for income-related benefit offsets.

  2. Figures are calculated to the nearest £100 million. Totals may include amounts of less than £100 million not otherwise shown in the table.

  3. Real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum has been assumed.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the assumptions about the proportion of benefit recipients opting to receive their benefits by automated credit transfer which underlie his estimate of a saving of £400 million on benefit delivery by 2005. [104148]

  Mr. Rooker
  The move to automated credit transfer as the normal method of payment from 2003 brings significant savings in DSS administrative costs. This is anticipated to be in the region of £400 million per year once the transition from current paper based methods of payment is complete, and the majority of benefit recipients have moved to ACT. Further savings on fraud are also expected. Estimates of these range from £140 million to £240 million.

  One third of benefit recipients already choose to have their benefits paid by automated credit transfer, direct into to their bank accounts, and the vast majority—around 85 per cent.—already have access to a bank account.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many winter fuel payments were paid out before Christmas; how many eligible persons failed to receive payments before Christmas; if he will pay £10 compensation to each person receiving payments after Christmas; if he will estimate how much such compensation would cost; and if he will make a statement. [104317]

  Angela Eagle
  This winter, some 10.2 million Winter Fuel Payments were issued before Christmas 1999.

  Of the payments issued, around five million were sent directly to Post Offices. For security reasons, Post Offices were advised to return any uncollected girocheques to the Benefits Agency on 20 December 1999 which would enable them to determine why the girocheques were not collected and issue replacements as necessary.

  Information on those who remain unpaid will not be available until the end of January 2000.

  There are no plans to pay compensation to people who may have received their payments after Christmas.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from pensioners who reached pension age after 23 September in respect of the winter fuel allowance; and if he will make a statement. [104368]
  333W
  Angela Eagle
  130 representations were received compared with the 10 million payments which have been made. This winter the qualifying week of 20 September was used to enable all those eligible to be identified and paid before Christmas.

  Combined Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the first combined pension forecasts to be issued, as described on page 89 of the Partnership in Pensions White Paper. [105151]

  Mr. Rooker
  The first combined forecasts will be issued to individuals in the Spring as part of a series of pilot exercises we have under way with private and public sector employers and pension providers.

  We have announced that we want to make this service generally available to employers and pension providers from 2002. We expect to meet or better this target date.

  National Insurance Staff
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made in the past year to identity checks on staff issuing National Insurance numbers. [104612]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of changes have been made in the past year to control procedures for the staff who are enabled to issue adult National Insurance numbers. Firstly, reductions have been made in the number of staff who have access to the allocation process. The introduction of these new procedures has reduced the number of people who are able to allocate new numbers from over 1,500 to less than 525.

  We have also created a database of the staff who are able to allocate numbers. This allows checks to be made on exactly how many people have access to this process at any one time, who those people are, why they need access and how many National Insurance numbers any one individual has allocated. This process is controlled via a security procedure agreed between this Department and the Inland Revenue.

  Finally we have introduced automatic security checks which enable managers to investigate whether staff have a continuing need to have access to the allocation process. The system will highlight unusual activity and prompt a Management check.

  Remote Access Terminals
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities had installed remote access terminals(a) on the most recent date for which he has information and (b) at the end of March 1999. [104657]

  Angela Eagle
  By the 1 December 1999, when the Departmental 'Millennium Operating Regime' limiting IT development around the year 2000 came into effect, there were 349 Local Authorities (LAs) with 368 Remote Access Terminals (RATs). The comparable figure for March 1999 was 336 LAs with 362 RATs. We expect 393 LAs to have at least one RAT by the end of March 2000.
  334W
  We have recently invited those LAs that have still not applied for a RAT to do so as they provide LAs with on-line access to benefit data held by the Benefits Agency that are needed to administer Housing and Council Tax benefits efficiently.

  Personal Details Computer System
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many records were held on the Personal Details Computer System at(a) the start of January 1999 and (b) the end of December 1999. [104658]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of records held on the Personal Details Computer System at the start of January 1999 was 11,796,041 and the end of December 1999 was 22,513,887.

  Benefit Post Scheme
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if every local authority had been invited by the end of January 1999 to join his Department's scheme to ensure that benefit post is not redirected; and how many have joined. [104619]

  Angela Eagle
  The Royal Mail "do not redirect" service became legally operable from 1 February 1999. A circular was sent to all local authority housing benefit managers on 2 February 1999 describing the arrangements and inviting them to join the scheme.

  At 14 January 2000, the Royal Mail had confirmed that 225 local authorities were using the service.

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to increase the productivity and reduce the running costs of his Department. [103855]

  Mr. Rooker
  Delivering efficient and modern public services is a key part of our agenda for improving efficiency. Greater efficiency is being sought therefore within the public sector to ensure that the most effective results are obtained from available resources. The Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA) Cm 4315, includes a range of measures for taking this forward, both within the Department itself and in other public bodies.

  Those measures which will help raise the Department's own productivity are as follows:

  Reducing Fraud

  "A new contract for welfare: Safeguarding Social Security" (Cm 4276) sets out our strategy for tackling fraud and error. It explains how the Department will shift the emphasis from detection to prevention of fraud and error in the Social Security system.

  Work is under way to bring forward the other elements of the strategy by developing an integrated approach across the Department, and those other bodies with whom it works.

  Better Quality Services

  Better Quality Services (BQS) reviews are part of the Department's approach to Modernising Government. BQS is a cross-Government approach led by Cabinet Office, under which Government Departments must examine all

  335W
  options to achieve best quality and value for money in delivering their services. Cabinet Office has approved a five year BQS Action Plan to review rigorously all functions across the Department. Our reviews will focus on end results, maximising potential for synergies in service delivery across the Department and delivering continuous improvement. We have completed reviews of IS/IT, procurement, consultancy, audit and finance and planning activities. 60 per cent. of services and activities will be reviewed by March 2003 in line with the PSA target.

  Electronic Government

  In 1997 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that by October 2002, one quarter of dealings with the Government can be done by a member of the public electronically, through their telephone, TV or computer. The Modernising Government White Paper (MGWP) (www.citu.gov.uk/moderngov.whitepaper/4310.htm) added additional capability milestones of 50 per cent. by 2005 and 100 per cent. by 2008. Progress is monitored every six months, and put on the web (www.citu.gov.uk/25percent menu.htm).

  This White Paper committed the Department to delivering a Corporate IT Strategy that will enable stronger co-ordination on key issues such as Government Websites, Call Centres, Smart Cards, Digital TV and the inter-operability of Government IT Systems. The aim of the Strategy is to further a more coherent approach to the development of the Government's use of IT, and its integration with that of the wider public sector.

  The Strategy, which will be completed in March, is being developed by the Information Age Government Champions team drawn from all Government departments. The website (www.iagchampions.gov.uk) has their terms of reference and has, or will, publish for consultation the guidelines on

  Call centres

  Digital television

  Government on the Internet

  Data standards

  Smartcards

  At the infrastructure level, we are preparing our key objectives for data management and established technology frameworks, and we are developing public sector coherence through the use of our Government Secure Intranet.

  Reducing Sickness absence

  Progress includes an improved model for measuring sickness absence, detailed analyses of the patterns and causes of sickness, issuing guidance to managers and raising awareness within the Department. Each Agency has also been set a target to reduce absences by December 1999 as part of a contribution towards meeting the overall PSA target.

  Improving procurement

  (i) DSS spends about 50 per cent. of its running costs on goods and services. In 1998–99 this amounted to about £1.5 billion.

  (ii) DSS has adopted a strategic approach to supply management. A Supply Strategy Steering Group (SSSG) with senior cross-Business Unit representation was established in 1997 to steer, develop and articulate DSS policy and strategy for use of external resources in the provision of business services. Martin
  336W
  Sykes was appointed Director of Supply Strategy (DoSS) from the private sector on 1 June 1998, he reports to the Departmental Board (DB) and sits on the ITSA Board.

  (iii) Past exercises to test DSS supply requirements against the market have led to a significant proportion of DSS support services now being provided by external suppliers—significant areas of business currently provided in this way are:

  Estate management, accommodation and office services;

  Information Systems/Information Technology operations; and Medical services.

  (iv) In partnership with the private sector the Department is seeking to support Modern Service delivery, for example by the replacement of Information Systems/Information Technology systems through the ACCORD project.

  (v) A fundamental review of procurement and supply arrangements across DSS recommended changes which were approved by DB in November 1999. The review addressed the requirements of Better Quality Services and focused on ways to improve the quality of the procurement service and develop our ability to contribute to business objectives, particularly Modern Service delivery. It identified ways to streamline the organisation, develop and focus expertise and improve assurance and VFM in supply arrangements. A key initiative will reorganise the current procurement units which support specific Business Units or office complexes into a coordinated, streamlined corporate structure. The new structure will provide better quality procurement services. It will also eliminate duplication, giving local managers opportunity to redeploy staff or realise efficiency savings. Plans to implement these recommendations by end September 2000 are being developed.

  (vi) We have completed a Contract Management Development Project and developed a strategy for contract management and initiatives to strengthen contract management in DSS.

  (vii) An External Resources Project has examined our use of consultants and contractors and has proposed ways to improve control and value in its Final Report dated 27 July 1999. A further piece of work is under way to address Ministers' request that we examine the potential to reduce our use of external personnel by enhancing our in-house capability.

  (viii) The Department is committed to the Government Procurement Card (GPC) and has developed plans to roll out GPC in order to reduce transaction costs and meet payment time obligations.

  (ix) In the Department about 120 staff are engaged full-time in procurement activity, of whom 73 (61 per cent.) are qualified to at least CIPS foundation level. In addition about 30 staff are currently training towards qualification. We are on course to meet the PSA target to increase our proportion of CIPS qualified staff. A parallel target is 75 per cent. CIPS qualified staff by 2000.

  (x) The Department has worked with external partners to develop a Contract Management Best Practice Model. The model will enable the Department contract management groups to assess performance against best practice and develop plans for improvement. Following a successful pilot the model has been rolled out.

  Efficiency Targets

  At the heart of the Department's welfare reform programme is the need to transform delivery from a passive to an active modern service promoting opportunity as well as paying benefit and exercising far better control over programme costs.

  The Department will seek to achieve this by the introduction of a mixture of administrative and legislative measures
  337W
  The Department will:
  continue to develop better measures of efficiency and extend these to cover a wider range of Departmental initiatives;
  achieve a better alignment of resources with services delivered, through more systematic use of output prices, and the wider disciplines of Resource Accounting and Budgeting;
  publish service first charters and baseline performance and achieve the agreed targets;
  reduce by 30 per cent. benefit losses from fraud and errors in Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002;
  deliver existing services within the running costs total implying an annual efficiency gain of at least 4 per cent. and aiming particularly to ensure tighter control of central costs and overheads; and,
  invest in modernisation as the route to a more secure and efficient welfare system.

  Agency Targets

  To support the Departmental commitments in the PSA, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sets annual targets for the Department's Agencies. A full list of these can be found in the Next Steps Report and in individual Agency Business Plans and Charters. Copies of these documents can be found in the Library.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list those councils which have never prosecuted claimants for housing benefit fraud; [104616]

  (2) if he will give details for the most recent year for which he has data of how many individual cases of fraud have been committed by local authority (i) members and (ii) officers; what the total value of that fraud is; how many prosecutions have so far occurred; how much of the money has been returned; and how many of the (a) members and (b) officials were dismissed from local authority employment. [104656]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) councillors and (b) council officers he estimates are involved in housing benefit fraud; [105017]

  (2) what powers local authorities have to prosecute (a) councillors and (b) council officers involved in housing benefit fraud. [104989]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department collects information on the total number of cases referred for prosecution by local authorities and whether they have been successful. In 1997–98, 212 local authorities referred 1,148 cases for prosecution, of which 631 were successfully convicted. This information is not broken down by type. Information about those authorities who did not prosecute any cases, or did not provide information on whether they had, has been placed in the Library.

  Evidence from the Audit Commission provided to the Public Accounts Committee indicated that 382 cases involving housing benefit fraud by council staff and councillors in 57 local authorities in England and Wales had occurred in 1998–99.

  We are as dissatisfied as the PAC with the level of fraud and error in housing benefit—particularly where council members or officers are found to be involved. Local authorities should take a firm line and prosecute fraud wherever it occurs. This is why we set up a pilot
  338W
  exercise giving 174 authorities access to DSS solicitors to help prosecute wrongdoing and to establish why authorities are slow to prosecute.

  Councillors and council officers should always be prosecuted where they are found to be fraudulent and it is in the public interest to do so. There also has to be sufficient evidence to prosecute. The ethical standards Bill will put in place a new framework to deliver high standards of conduct throughout local government.

  Local authorities have the same powers to prosecute councillors and council officers as those used to prosecute benefit claimants who commit housing benefit fraud. Councillors and officers would normally be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968 or the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

  Reforms we have already set in train such as the Verification Framework (an intensive case checking regime), combined with rigorous identity checks and the requirement on claimants to provide National Insurance numbers will help to prevent and root out all types of fraud. New financial incentives will reward local authorities for prosecuting benefit fraudsters.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's follow-up procedure for Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports on local authorities; what follow-up assessments have been made to date; and if he will place the follow-up assessments in the Library. [104613]

  Angela Eagle
  Following publication of a Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report, the Department invites the local authority to consider and respond to the report and to submit any proposals for improving its performance and remedying any failings identified by the report. The report and any proposals made by the local authority in response to it are then considered to determine whether the Secretary of State should give directions to the authority as to any standards the authority is to attain and the time within which they are to be attained.

  To date, 37 reports on local authorities have been published and responses by local authorities in respect of 33 of them have been, or are currently being, considered by the Department. In those cases where consideration has been completed the local authorities have been requested to provide periodic progress reports to enable us to monitor implementation of their action plans and future performance.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities have implemented the Verification Framework relating to housing benefit fraud. [104618]

  Angela Eagle
  At 12 January 2000, 226 local authorities have received funds to implement the Verification Framework.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures he has established to assess the fraud savings from the best value project. [104614]

  Angela Eagle
  The central purpose of best value is to make a real and positive difference to the service people receive from their local authorities. We are setting from this April best value performance indicators for housing benefit and council tax benefit delivery, including an
  339W
  interim security indicator for 2000–01. These will help drive forward continuous improvements in the standards of service authorities provide to people claiming the benefits.

  We remain committed to reducing substantially the amount lost each year through fraud and error. We are continuing to press local authorities to root out fraud. For example, we have just announced new financial incentives for authorities to encourage them to undertake more prosecutions and to stop fraud getting into the system by implementing the Verification Framework.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) administrative financial penalties and (b) formal cautions were issued to benefit claimants in the year for which he has the most recent data; [104660]

  (2) what, in the last year for which figures are available, was the total amount collected from the 30 per cent. penalty on minor frauds when the scheme first came into operation; and what enhancements were made to the scheme between January and July 1999. [104617]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of administrative penalties and cautions issued for the year 1998–99 and the year to date are as follows:

  Administration Penalties

  Cautions

  1998–99

  1,637

  1,239

  1999 to date

  2,945

  3,717

  These figures are constantly being updated as notification of penalties and cautions for 1998–99 and 1999 to date are still being received.

  The value of Administrative Penalties imposed to date is £1,070,934. The overpayment is fully collected before the penalty, so therefore in the majority of cases the recovery of the penalty has not yet commenced, but it will.

  There have been no enhancements to the scheme.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of housing benefit fraud by local authority(a) members and (b) officials were detected in the City of Edinburgh in 1998–99. [104653]

  Angela Eagle
  The City of Edinburgh has advised that no cases of benefit fraud were detected involving council members. One case was detected involving an officer in 1998–99.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Taskforce
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will announce the publication of the Football Taskforce report. [104913]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government welcome the final report of the Football Taskforce on commercial issues which was published by the Taskforce on 22 December. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 30 November 1999 regarding a constituent (ref. C99/24781). [104816]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting sent a reply on 11 January.

  Sporting Talent
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to improve and encourage sporting talent in the UK. [105103]

  Kate Hoey
  The United Kingdom Sports Council (UK Sport) was established in January 1997 to focus on high performance sport at the UK level, with the aim of achieving sporting excellence on the world stage. The work of UK Sport, in liaison with the four Home Country Sports Councils, is to build a framework for success. Crucial to this is underpinning the base of participation and ensuring opportunities for youngsters to participate both in and out of school.

  The United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) will provide our best sports men and women with the facilities and services they need to help them compete successfully at the highest level. The UKSI will be made up of a central services, to be part of UK Sport, and a network of centres throughout the UK, which are being delivered by the Home Country Sports Councils. These will deliver a range of sports science and sports medicine services, including sports physiology, biomechanics, sports nutrition, physiotherapy and podiatry.

  Work has also been undertaken in full consultation with Performance Directors, coaches and athletes to identify the services they need to support them in their training and competition programmes—such as, the Athlete Career and Education programme (ACE UK) and the High Performance Coaching Programme (CPD), both launched last year—to be delivered directly to our top athletes and coaches.

  The development of sporting excellence, including disability sport, is also being provided through the World Class Programme. Over £80 million has already been made available from the Lottery to some 33 sports and over 2,000 athletes for World Class Performance. World Class Start and World Class Potential (to be funded from the Lottery by Sport England) will provide £25 million per annum to find, nurture and develop those with the characteristics and sporting talent to achieve success at the highest sporting level.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what resources for(a) youth cricket, (b) Rugby League, (c) Rugby Union, (d) track and field sports and (e) swimming were made available for the current financial year and will be made available in the next financial year. [105104]
  341W
  Kate Hoey
  My Department's funding for sport is channelled primarily through the Sports Councils: Sport England and UK Sport. The resources made available by the two Sports Councils is as follows:

  Sport England

  Financial year

  Exchequer grant (£)

  Lottery Community Project funding1,2(£)

  Cricket3

  1999–2000

  216,220

  4,468,279

  2000–01

  288,550

  —

  Rugby League

  1999–2000

  338,250

  1,481,651

  2000–01

  250,000

  —

  Rugby Union

  1999–2000

  251,667

  5,130,915

  2000–01

  335,833

  —

  Track and Field

  1999–2000

  41,666

  6,482,107

  2000–01

  337,000

  —

  Swimming

  1999–2000

  314,000

  17,778,329

  2000–01

  315,000

  —

  1 It is not possible to provide details of funds that will be made available to these sports for the remainder of this or the next financial year as there is no prior allocation of Lottery Community Project funding, which is application led.

  2 1 April 1999 to 30 November 1999.

  3 Precise details of funding for "youth cricket" are not available. However in most cases, if not all, the awards made to cricket will benefit youth in some way.

  UK Sport

  £

  Exchequer grants

  Lottery revenue funding1

  Athletics

  1 January 1999–31 December 1999

  490,000

  9,487,699

  1 January 2000–31 December 2000

  To be agreed

  —

  Swimming

  1 October 1999–30 September 2000

  230,000

  5,399,656

  1 October 2000–30 September 2001

  To be agreed

  —

  1 Made available from 1 May 1998

  In addition to the listed funds made available by UK Sport and Sport England, my Department also provides funding to the Sportsmatch scheme. This scheme encourages commercial sponsors to invest in grass root sport, particularly youth development programmes. During the last full financial year (1998–99) the awards made to these sports were:

  £

  Cricket

  231,000

  Rugby League

  305,000

  Rugby Union

  607,000

  Athletics

  36,000

  Swimming

  15,000

  My Department will provide £3.373 million to Sportsmatch both this and the next financial year, of which approximately £2.9 million will be directly spent on awards. It is not possible to provide figures for each of these sports as awards to the individual sports vary from year to year and the process is application led.

  Olympic Swimmers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department provides to Olympic swimmers. [105086]

  Kate Hoey
  From 1 October 1999 to January 2000 the Amateur Swimming Association of Great Britain was awarded £396,029 towards the Programme costs for these swimmers which includes training at home and abroad, access to equipment and facilities, and coaching. In addition to this the swimmers themselves were awarded approximately £224,876 in subsistence support. This support will continue, the next funding period will run from 1 February 2000 to 30 September 2000, with the precise details to be agreed shortly. The final squad selection for the Sydney Olympics will be made on 30 July 2000. Currently 47 elite swimmers are supported by UK Sport and Sport England under the Lottery funded World Class Performance Programme.

  Running Tracks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many local authority running tracks there are in Lancashire. [105106]

  Kate Hoey
  There are 19 local authority running tracks in Lancashire.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many district authority areas in England do not have all-weather running tracks. [105105]

  Kate Hoey
  Of the 366 district authorities, there are 194 without all-weather running tracks.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what revenue was generated by the exports of(a) animated films and (b) all films produced in the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [105046]

  Janet Anderson
  Receipts from abroad to film companies in the UK totalled £581 million in 1998. This figure relates to all films and is not broken down by genre. Separate figures for animated films are not therefore available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is his estimate of the number of animated films to be made in the United Kingdom in 2000; [105092]

  (2) how many animated films were made in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; [105093]

  (3) how many people are employed in the animated film industry. [105044]

  Janet Anderson
  This information is not available. However, production spend on animation in the UK is around £200 million annually, which supports some 350 independent companies. These range in size from one or two-person outfits creating small-scale experimental works, to large set ups producing multi-episode series for major broadcasters such as Channel 4, BBC and Granada. Animated product is provided across the whole spectrum of the audiovisual industries in the UK, from
  343W
  commercials, television, feature films and corporate videos to the new industries dealing with websites and computer games.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what grants are available to support the production of animated films; [105090]

  (2) what support his Department gives to the animated film industry. [105091]

  Janet Anderson
  Public funds for the support of the film industry, including film production will, from 1 April, be channelled through the Film Council. This support will comprise grant-in-aid from my Department and a dedicated percentage of National Lottery proceeds. Over the next three years the Film Council will have about £150 million at its disposal to support the film industry and film culture. It will be for the Council itself to determine the appropriate form and level of support for animation, within its overall strategy for developing a sustainable UK film industry.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of likely growth in the production of films in the UK in the next five years. [105045]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department does not make forecasts of film production levels. The past decade has seen considerable fluctuation in the numbers of films produced in the UK, from a low of 47 in 1992 to a high of 128 in 1996. The first five years of the decade saw a total of 317 productions with the last five years totalling 479. With the policies we have been implementing over the past three years to build on and sustain this upward trend I fully expect the current levels of film production activity to at least be maintained over the next five years.

  Royal Ballet
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to encourage the Royal Ballet to make tours to all the English regions. [105043]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 2000–01 English National Ballet will receive over £4.1 million from the Arts Council of England to tour extensively throughout England.

  Their grant from the Arts Council enables the company to visit a selection of English cities every season. For example, the full company has recently toured to Oxford, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent and London. In addition, the company divides into two and has recently toured to smaller towns and cities including Barnstaple, Barrow-in-Furness, Bexhill-on-Sea, Blackpool, Cambridge, Cheltenham, Crawley, Crewe, Poole, Richmond, Scunthorpe, Swindon, Truro, Tunbridge Wells and Woking.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding his Department has made available to increase the number of tourists to the North West. [105050]

  Janet Anderson
  The North West region currently receives an allocation of funds for tourism from the English Tourism Council. More funds will be made 344W
  available from the next financial year for the support of tourism in the regions and more work will be undertaken at regional levels to deliver the actions in Tomorrow's Tourism. The overall North West Region, as all other regions, will also benefit from other funds such as lottery funding, the Single Regeneration Budget and European Regional Development Budget.

  Sports Equipment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will make grants available to Rugby League clubs for renewing and replacing equipment; [105089]

  (2) if he will make grants available to cricket clubs for renewing and replacing cricket equipment. [105088]

  Kate Hoey
  Under the Millennium Festival Awards for All scheme, grants are already available to, among other things, provide opportunities for all clubs, including cricket and rugby league, to purchase new equipment. This scheme was introduced specifically to ensure that the widest possible range of projects benefit from the National Lottery.

  Sport (Centres of Excellence)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will establish a centre of excellence for Rugby League and Rugby Union in the North West. [105101]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England is currently in discussions with the governing bodies of Rugby League and Rugby Union about their requirements for developing performance to the highest level. Whatever is developed will be linked in to the services and facilities provided by the United Kingdom Sports Institute.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the centres of excellence for sport in England. [105107]

  Kate Hoey
  The United Kingdom Sports Institute in England will have 10 National Network Centres. These will be at Bath University, Bedford, Bisham Abbey, Crystal Palace, Gateshead, Holme Pierrepont/Loughborough, Lilleshall, Manchester, Southampton University, and Sheffield. Each will be supported by regional sites of expertise, ensuring best practice is harnessed for the benefit of athletes and coaches through a consortium approach. In October 1999, Sports England confirmed up to £120 million of Lottery funds towards project costs of £175 million to support the English element of the United Kingdom Sports Institute.

  Cricket
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support his Department provides to local cricket clubs to encourage wider participation in the game. [105087]

  Kate Hoey
  Exchequer funding for cricket, via Sport England, is supporting development officers who are working to increase participation in the game, focusing particularly on junior players. Cricket is also benefiting from BT Top Sport delivered by the Youth Sports Trust and Sport England which is aimed at encouraging young
  345W
  people to participate in sport. In addition, local cricket clubs can apply for funding under the Millennium Festival Awards for All scheme whereby applicants must demonstrate, among other things, that they intend to use the funding to encourage wider participation at a local level.

  Theatres (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to extend access to theatres for people living in rural areas. [105042]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council of England aims to increase access to theatres for people living in rural areas by continuing to fund the touring activities of our arts organisations. Significantly, the Arts Council will be announcing later this year details of the National Touring Programme, a new Lottery scheme. This Programme, which has initially been allocated £10 million over two years, will fund new and existing touring by supporting the distribution of work from across a broad range of arts disciplines and scales to audiences throughout England.

  In addition, the New Audiences Fund is supporting over 100 projects with an annual budget of £5 million. The projects supported include those which aim to deliver more arts events and activities to more people throughout the country, primarily by extending existing 'tours' to increase their geographical reach and by exploring new methods and means of distribution. A selection of projects will also promote broader access by addressing practical barriers to attendance in rural areas, including transport.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the permissions granted, giving dates and organisations involved, for demonstrations to take place in each of the Royal Parks since 1 May 1997. [104650]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 17 January 2000:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of demonstrations for which permission has been granted and the organisations involved, because it is a matter for which responsibility has been passed to this Agency.
  I attach a list of all assemblies, rallies and demonstrations for which permission has been granted in Hyde Park. Hyde Park is the only park where we permit these activities to take place.

  List of assemblies, demonstrations, rallies in Hyde Park

  Date

  Assembly/demonstration/rally

  Organisation

  17 May 1997

  A'shura day of mourning

  Islamic Universal Association

  17 May 1997

  Sportsman's Association rally

  24 May 1997

  Iranians in exile

  6 June 1997

  Krishna Consciousness

  7 June 1997

  Europeans march against unemployment

  8 June 1997

  International Sikh Youth Foundation

  Federation of UK Sikhs

  346W

  List of assemblies, demonstrations, rallies in Hyde Park

  Date

  Assembly/demonstration/rally

  Organisation

  21 June 1997

  Iraqi opposition groups in London

  22 June 1997

  Eritrean rally (Consulate of Eritrea)

  5 July 1997

  Gay Pride Assembly

  Gay Pride

  10 July 1997

  Countryside Rally

  Countryside Alliance

  12 July 1997

  Megan's Law Assembly

  13 July 1997

  Young Indian Vegetarian rally

  19 July 1997

  Eid-Ul-Millad-Un-Nabbi Birthday

  20 July 1997

  Federation of Cypriots Rally

  Federation of Cypriots

  26 July 1997

  United Tamils Organisation

  2 August 1997

  National Anti-Hunt Campaign

  3 August 1997

  The voice of world Muslims

  17 August 1997

  Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Committee Assembly

  6 September 1997

  Campaign for the rights of survivors of sexual abuse

  28 September 1997

  Sportsman's Association

  18 October 1997

  Cuba Solidarity Campaign

  25 October 1997

  Kashmir Co-ordination Committee

  1 November 1997

  Anti Tuition Fee Assembly

  28 November 1997

  Campaign for Free Education

  24 January 1998

  Islamic Human Rights Commission

  1 February 1998

  United Tamils Organisation

  28 February 1998

  Let's Rescue Ethiopia Assembly

  1 March 1998

  Countryside Alliance March

  28 March 1998

  Cannabis March

  Independent on Sunday

  25 March 1998

  Iraqi Muslim Community Assembly

  7 May 1998

  A'shura day of mourning

  Islamic Universal Association

  17 May 1998

  Sinhala Bala Mandalaya Anti Tamil Tigers March

  6 June 1998

  Krishna Awareness

  7 June 1998

  Federation of Sikh Organisations Assembly

  Federation of Sikh Organisations UK

  4 July 1998

  Gay Pride Assembly (Gay Pride)

  26 September 1998

  National Association for People Abused in Childhood

  NAPAC

  4 October 1998

  Kosova Solidarity March

  31 October 1998

  Movement Against the Monarchy

  18 October 1998

  Campaign for Free Education

  1 November 1998

  Ethiopians for Peace and Development Association

  16 January 1999

  United Islamic Students Association

  31 January 1999

  United Tamils Organisation

  20 February 1999

  Cricklewood Against Nuclear Trains

  21 February 1999

  British Eritrean Association Assembly

  BEA

  10 April 1999

  Campaign Against Genetically Modified Food

  17 April 1999

  Campaign Against Sanctions and War on Iraq

  25 April 1999

  Albania Community Rally

  27 April 1999

  A'shuru day of mourning

  Islamic Universal Association

  13 June 1999

  Federation of Sikh Organisations Assembly

  20 June 1999

  Freedom of Choice Rally

  20 June 1999

  Eritrean Rally

  Consulate of Eritrea

  347W

  List of assemblies, demonstrations, rallies in Hyde Park

  Date

  Assembly/demonstration/rally

  Organisation

  3 July 1999

  Gay Pride Assembly

  Gay Pride

  10 July 1999

  Justice for Livia Assembly

  12 July 1999

  Holy Grave Destruction Protest

  17 July 1999

  Kent Against Live Exports Assembly

  15 August 1999

  Krishna Awareness

  9 September 1999

  Iraqi Cancer Epidemic Rally

  Mariam Appeal

  2 October 1999

  Assembly of the Camden Trust

  Camden Trust

  31 October 1999

  Keep Barnet Alive

  31 December 1999

  Young Indian Vegetarian Rally

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to respond to the review of concessionary television licences carried out by the Davies Panel. [104604]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: I intend to announce the Government's conclusions on all the Davies panel's recommendations shortly.

  Nautical Archaeology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking following the letters to him of 15 December 1999 from Valerie Fenwick, and of 17 December from Angela Groome, to update the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and to provide resources for nautical archaeology. [104511]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: It is Government policy, as announced following our Departmental Spending Review, to grant English Heritage powers in respect of underwater archaeology. This will allow access to English Heritage grant funds currently unavailable to underwater archaeology projects. Expansion of English Heritage's remit in this way will require legislative changes, and we will continue to seek an early legislative opportunity for this purpose.

  It will be a matter for English Heritage, once they have been given responsibility for underwater archaeology, to advise on whether the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 needs updating.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from UK Athletics concerning the proposals for the English National Stadium at Wembley put forward by Wembley Stadium Ltd. regarding the proposals' suitability for hosting the World Athletics Championships and an Olympic athletics competition. [104334]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: My Department was in close contact with UK Athletics about the proposals for athletics at Wembley. Following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend to the House on 1 December 1999, Official Report, columns 305–06, and a further statement issued on 22 December 1999, my Department are continuing to work with UK Athletics and the British Olympic Association to develop and assess non-Wembley options for staging international athletics events.

  Athletics
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the suitability of the Copland School site or a location for a warm-up track for the World Athletics Championships in 2005. [104325]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: The suitability of a number of options for warm up facilities around the stadium at Wembley were considered by Sport England including the Copeland School site. Although providing a lasting legacy for school and community use, Sport England expressed reservations in respect of access to the stadium during an event which would have weakened a World Athletics Championship bid.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the Chief Executive of UK Athletics about the feasibility of hosting the World Athletics Championships and an Olympic athletics competition at Twickenham; [104340]

  (2) if all seats in the stadium at Twickenham would comply with the C60 minimum sightlines specification of the Green Guide and the Football Stadium Advisory Design Council for a world athletics championship staged there without relocating the site of the present stands; [104329]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the cost of upgrading the public transport infrastructure at Twickenham so as to make it capable of hosting a world athletics championship and an Olympic athletics competition; [104333]

  (4) when designs for the conversion of Twickenham, such as would render it suitable to accommodate a World Athletics Championship and an Olympic athletics competition, will be ready for submission to the local planning authority; [104341]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the South Stand at Twickenham on a (a) hydraulic and (b) roller system so as to accommodate an athletics track suitable for hosting a world athletics championship and Olympic athletics competition and of providing additional infill seating between the new south stand and the existing east and west stands, inclusive of lost revenue whilst such alterations are being carried out; [104342]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the cost ofupgrading seating and corporate hospitality at Twickenham to render it suitable to host a World Athletics Championship and Olympic athletic competition; [104337]

  (7) what assessment he has made as to whether the timescale for converting Twickenham into a stadium capable of hosting the World Athletics Championship and an Olympic athletics competition will allow a successful bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships; [104339]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the need to upgrade the corporate hospitality facilities at Twickenham as part of a bid to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships and an Olympic athletic competition; [104336]
  349W
  (9) what investigations he has made into locating a suitable warm-up track for the 2005 World Athletics championships close to Twickenham. [104324]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: Sport England, together with UK Sport, UK Athletics, the BOA and the Department, is undertaking further work on non-Wembley options for staging international athletics events. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) proposed that Twickenham might be used for such events and constructive discussions are underway between the Department, Sport England, UK Athletics, the BOA, the RFU and the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. A further announcement will be made once this work is completed.

  Departmental Employee Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) men and (b) women in each of the standard age groups were employed in his Department in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1999. [104018]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was established in April 1992 following machinery of government changes.

  The information for 1 April 1999 is as follows:

  Men

  Women

  16–19

  1

  0

  20–24

  5

  1

  25–29

  18

  21

  30–34

  41

  40

  35–39

  46

  35

  40–44

  31

  19

  45–49

  35

  15

  50+

  24

  28

  Digital Television
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received regarding the number of transmitters and the power of transmissions for digital television services; and if he will make a statement. [104725]

  Janet Anderson
  DCMS has received a number of representations from MPs and members of the public about the coverage of digital terrestrial television (DTT) services.

  The BBC and Independent Television Commission (1TC) jointly planned for the launch of digital terrestrial television and developed a plan comprising a network of 81 transmitter sites across the UK, most of which are now broadcasting.

  The BBC and ITC, with the transmission providers, are now considering, in consultation with the digital broadcasters, Government and representatives of manufacturers and consumers, how to improve coverage across all six digital terrestrial television multiplexes at all of the 81 sites. It is hoped, as a result of initial work in the London and surrounding area, that significant improvements will be possible.

  Television News Coverage
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will instruct the ITC to obtain from ITV the latest figures showing(a) the change in the numbers watching news on Channel 3 since the abolition of "News at Ten" and (b) the change in the viewing numbers for the 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. weekday slot on Channel 3 since the abolition of "News at Ten". [104467]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission is monitoring the performance of ITV following changes to its news provision in March 1999. For the four weeks beginning 6 December 1999 the average audiences who were watching news on Channel 3 and the figures for the equivalent weeks in 1998 are as follows:

  (a)

  Million

  1998

  5.40–6.00

  5.6

  10.00–10.30

  6.5

  Total

  12.1

  1999

  6.30–7.00

  6.2

  11.00–11.15

  3.2

  Total

  9.5

  (b) The average Channel 3 audience between 10.00 and 10.30 p.m. was 0.9 million less in the four weeks beginning 6 December 1999 than it was in the equivalent weeks in 1998.

TREASURY

  Smuggling
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of Martin Taylor's report on the Government's Strategy to Combat Tobacco Smuggling. [105332]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Martin Taylor's advice to the Chancellor was personal and confidential, including areas of operational sensitivity to HM Customs and Excise. It would therefore not be appropriate to place Mr. Taylor's advice in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of UK duty lost through the smuggling of alcohol in each of the last three years. [105358]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 26 November 1999,Official Report, columns 254–55W, and to the technical report on cross-Channel smuggling placed in the Library of the House on 19 September 1998.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 25 November regarding a constituent. [104815]
  351W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have responded.

  Cigarette Exports (Labelling)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has asked or intends to ask representatives of the UK tobacco manufacturers, distributors or exporters to provide data on quantities of UK manufactured cigarettes that have been exported from the UK with UK health warnings and markings and to explain the purpose of exporting cigarettes so labelled. [104642]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Such matters are laid to HM Customs and Excise. Customs does not routinely require tobacco manufacturers or other exporters to provide data on cigarettes exported with UK health warnings and markings. Customs is considering whether there is a case for doing so in future.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates HM Customs and Excise has made of the quantity of UK-manufactured cigarettes(a) exported from the UK with UK health warnings and markings and (b) sold on cross-channel ferries since July 1999 with UK health warnings and markings but with duty paid in France or Belgium. [104641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the extent of these activities.

  Energy Saving (VAT)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the VAT rates levied on a private citizen on(a) 1 January 1999 and (b) 1 January 2000 installing energy saving measures using a contractor in (i) France, (ii) Italy and (iii) the UK. [104690]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The VAT rates for the installation of energy saving measures by a private citizen on 1 January 1999 and 1 January 2000 are:

  (i) For installation in France
  On 1 January 1999 the VAT rate for the installation of energy saving materials was 22.5 per cent. France brought in a reduced rate of 5.5 per cent. for renovation and repair to private dwellings over two years old as part of their Autumn Budget in September 1999. The installation of energy saving materials is included within the scope of this reduced rate.

  (ii) For installation in Italy
  On 1 January 1999 the VAT rate for the installation of energy saving materials was 20 per cent. Italy has applied to the European Commission to apply a reduced rate of 10 per cent. to the renovation, routine maintenance and repair of private dwellings from 1 January 2000. It is not clear whether Italy intend to include the installation of energy saving materials in their reduced rate.

  (iii) For installation in the UK
  In July 1998 this Government introduced a reduced VAT rate of 5 per cent. for the grant-funded installation of energy saving materials in the homes of the less well off. All other installations of energy saving materials attracted VAT at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. on 1 January 1999 and continue to do so.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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
  352W
  bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104478]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is too early to determine accurately what special additional payments will be made to staff for the new year period.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of asset disposals, at 1997–98 prices, for each year from 1992–93 to 2001–02 for(a) central Government, (b) local authorities and (c) other public bodies. [104477]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Receipts from the sale of fixed assets for central Government, local authorities and public corporations for 1993–94 to 2001–02 in 1997–98 prices are as shown.

  1997–98 prices: £ million

  Central government

  Local authorities

  Public corporations

  1993–94

  640

  3,987

  1,165

  1994–95

  704

  3,086

  1,048

  1995–96

  844

  2,579

  993

  1996–97

  1,861

  2,607

  1,045

  1997–98

  1,568

  2,483

  950

  1998–991

  1,557

  2,151

  763

  1999–20002

  947

  2,604

  552

  2000–012

  924

  2,541

  614

  2001–022

  901

  2,479

  560

  1 Estimated outturn

  2 Plan

  It should be noted that plans not outturn figures are shown for the current and future years. 1992–93 data cannot be provided on a consistent series.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the overall cost of the changes in advance corporation tax in his 1997 Budget to public sector-funded pension schemes, broken down between the different schemes. [104624]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is not available and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost. Over time the abolition of dividend tax credits should be of benefit to anyone investing in business—including pension funds—because it removes an artificial tax bias to pay dividends instead of retaining and reinvesting profits.

  Orphan Asset Surplus Funds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions he has made since 1998 in respect of requests from financial services companies for the disposal of orphan asset surplus funds; and if he will make a statement. [105073]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have been(a) received and (b) refused for the repayment of dividend tax credits since 5 April 1999. [104890]
  353W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Inland Revenue does not record this information.

  Appropriation Orders
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 448W, concerning transfers of appropriations, if he will list the titles and purposes of all such orders made in the 1999 financial year. [105132]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A list of all transfers of appropriations made during each quarter of 1999 is attached to the unsigned Explanatory Memorandum submitted following the end of each quarter. The First and Second Quarterly Reports were submitted on 11 November 1999. The Third Quarterly Report will be submitted shortly, and the Fourth Quarterly Report will be prepared as soon as all the relevant documents have been received from the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers will attend meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Union concerned with financial and economic affairs during the current presidency; and if he will list the relevant dates and the topics expected to be discussed. [104992]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be attending the meetings of ECOFIN scheduled for 31 January, 28 February, 13 March, 7–8 April, 2 May and 5 June. The agendas for themeetings are not yet known.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to review the link between the Treasury standard interest rate and mortgage rates. [104841]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury sets a number of interest rates. Most rates are set in relation to National Loans Fund rates, which in turn are set by the Treasury marginally above the rate at which the Government can borrow in the gilts market.

  The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee sets official interest rates in order to meet the Government's inflation target. Changes in official rates affect market interest rates, including mortgage rates. Mortgage rates are set by the lenders concerned taking into account market conditions and other factors. The Government has no plans to set Treasury rates by reference to mortgage rates.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom as a result of fraud within the European Union in each of the last three years. [104257]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The European Commission produces a report each year entitled "Protecting the Community's financial interests and the Fight against 354W
  Fraud", which includes figures for detected fraud and irregularities against the EC budget. The latest report, for 1998, was published on the Commission's public internet website on 19 November 1999 and previous reports are available in the House of Commons Library. However, it is important to note that the majority of the cases are not deliberate frauds but irregularities which may be the result of genuine errors, for instance payment made outside prescribed time limits.

  Classification between fraud and irregularity is difficult because cases where there is a suspicion of fraud will be subject to lengthy investigations and legal proceedings. The Commission estimates in its report on the 1998 figures that, on a preliminary analysis, there was a suspicion of fraud in about 20 per cent. of the cases detected.

  Stress Counselling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax liability of the provision by employers of stress counselling for employees. [105333]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Medical or health benefits, including stress or other welfare counselling, provided by employers for employees are, like other benefits, usually taxable on employees—except where the counselling relates directly to something which has happened in carrying out the duties of the employment. But the benefit per employee of a generally available counselling service can be very small and tax may not in practice be charged.

  However, as I announced to the House on 19 November 1999, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), Official Report, column 13W, we will be bringing forward legislation in the next Finance Bill to provide an exemption for the benefit of an employer-provided welfare counselling service generally available to employees.

  VAT (Housing)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact on tax revenue in a full year of levying a 5 per cent. rate of VAT both on house refurbishment and repair and on construction on previously undeveloped land. [105145]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year cost in 2000–01 of levying a 5 per cent. rate of VAT on both house refurbishment and repair and on construction on previously undeveloped land would be approximately £670 million, assuming no consequential change in pre-tax prices.

  Consultation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what bodies his Department has consulted on each of its programmes since May 1997. [105243]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor's departments consult widely on proposals across the diverse range of policies for which they are responsible. There is no central record of consultees, and one could be assembled only at disproportionate expense.

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

Australia: Centenary
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans to mark the centenary this year of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg noble Lords' pardon for keeping your Lordships waiting. I could reply to the noble Baroness without awaiting the brief, but it is probably better that I have the Answer and read it.
Australia will launch its centenary celebrations with Australia Week in the UK this July. A key event will be a parliamentary function in the Royal Gallery on 6th July marking the centenary of the passage of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in July 1900. Both the British and Australian Prime Ministers will attend. To mark the centenary, we plan to make a substantial contribution to a memorial in Canberra to Australia's democracy and Britain's contribution to it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is good news. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is another big event to be celebrated this year in Australia? I refer to the sesquicentenary—the 150th anniversary—of the University of Sydney. Is she also aware that there is a strong link between the University of Sydney and the Commonwealth as the first Australian Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, had previously represented the University of Sydney in the New South Wales legislature? Is the noble Baroness further aware that Sir Henry Parkes, after whom the town of Parkes is named, was one of the fathers of federation in Australia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it gives me great delight to reply yes, yes and yes. It is of particular delight to us that we have the advantage of celebrating with Australia this momentous occasion. It gives us special delight that Sydney will be so celebrated and recognised for its work in this field.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the organising committee of the Sydney Olympics on its commitment to the spirit of the Olympics in its attempts to put first the interests of sportsmen and women? Will the noble Baroness also commend the officials in the DTI and the Foreign Office who have worked so hard and
868
dedicatedly to ensure the success of the UK Sydney Olympics Task Force which has led the world in promoting business opportunities for UK companies in major sporting events?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a refreshing beginning for a Monday because, again, I agree wholeheartedly with the congratulations given by the noble Lord.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is good that in the recent referendum the Australian populace voted for the retention of the monarchy and for the retention of its ties with Britain?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is of course a matter for the Australians themselves to decide. However, the connection with Australia remains firm. It is a delight that it continues unchallenged in the same form.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister think of a way in which the great achievements of the Australian armed forces in East Timor—they have been successful in restoring law and order and in preparing for the transfer to an independent state—can be associated with the centenary?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, I am delighted today to be able to agree so far with every speaker. The Australian efforts were very well received by us all. We expressed gratitude and approval. It is a delight that in so many forums we continue to be ad idem and to work together in such harmony.

NHS Waiting Lists
2.40 p.m.
Earl Howeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making to fulfil their pledge to cut National Health Service waiting lists by 100,000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are well on course to achieve the 100,000 reduction promised by the end of this Parliament. The latest data (for end November 1999) show that the number of patients on the National Health Service waiting lists is now 87,000 below the March 1997 level.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's obsession with reducing waiting list numbers obliges doctors to treat simpler and less urgent cases merely because that will bring down the numbers more quickly? Is the noble Lord further aware that since May 1997 the number of people waiting to see a consultant for more than 13 weeks has increased by more than a quarter of a million? Does

869
that not indicate that, far from boasting about the waiting list initiative, the Government should abandon it forthwith?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no. As one of the contributory factors in modernising the NHS, it is important that we attack waiting lists, as we are doing. Clinical priorities are a matter of clinical judgment. Emergencies will always be treated at once and urgent treatments will always be given priority.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that reducing waiting lists in the NHS often depends on the availability of adequate social care services? The commitment to increase the finance for the NHS is welcome. However, does the noble Lord agree that there needs also to be a guaranteed increase in the availability of social care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course a number of factors are involved in developing a proper and appropriate response to the need to reduce waiting lists. One of them, as the noble Lord has just mentioned, is the facilities and support available in the community for people who may then be discharged from hospital. Resources for local government and social services are an important part of our general improvement of public services.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does not the Question go to the heart of the management of the health service? The noble Lord, Lord Winston, is well-regarded in all parts of the House, as the Minister is aware. Would it not have been much better if the Prime Minister and his spokesman had responded to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, rather than trying to bully him into retracting them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winston put his finger on the matter when he spoke of the horrendous legacy left by the previous government. That legacy was a divisive internal market: hospitals, doctors and nurses forced to compete with each other; chronic under-investment; and a reduction in nurse training places. That is why we have a 10-year programme of modernisation to put that situation behind us and to improve services to patients.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, while I do not wish to follow the Minister down the path that he has just set, will he recognise that there are waiting lists and waiting lists? It is rather confusing for the public, because there are waiting lists for appointments in hospitals, waiting lists to see a consultant and waiting lists to have an operation. When the Minister talks about waiting lists, will he please avoid the trap of lumping them all together? They really are quite different.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out the multi-faceted nature of the issues that we are determined to tackle. With
870
regard to outpatient waiting times, the noble Baroness will probably know that we expect one third of a million more people to be treated as outpatients this year. We shall show the same determination that we have shown in relation to inpatients to tackle waiting lists for outpatients. Overall, it is right that we should focus on waiting lists as an important factor in modernising the service.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the alleged obsession with waiting lists was not invented by the present Government, but by our predecessors? They were constantly discussing waiting lists when we were in opposition. Am I right in understanding my noble friend when he refers to waiting lists as only one of the things at which the Government are aiming? If I recall correctly—perhaps my noble friend will assure your Lordships on the point—the Government, in their White Paper, referred much more significantly to reducing death rates from coronary heart disease, strokes, cancer and other such illnesses. Surely that is the sort of topic on which we should be concentrating and the sort of topic also on which one would rather like the Opposition to offer some support.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to point to the priorities we have set in relation to cancer, coronary heart disease and, indeed, mental health. As for the previous government's record on waiting lists, we should recall that they set a target specifying that no one should have to wait more than 18 months. They did not deliver. We, however, have done so.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Scotland many hospital beds are occupied by elderly patients who cannot afford the fees to go into nursing homes and for whom no money is available to enable them to be looked after in their own homes in the community?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that, I am happy to say, is a devolved matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the future of the health service is largely dependent upon the Treasury?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I always speak well of the Treasury. It is absolutely right that the future funding of the National Health Service is crucial to our modernisation programme. We have already signalled our determination to provide the required investment. That is why we were able to commission 37 new hospitals, which are currently on track; why we have been able to increase the number of nurses coming back into the health service; and why we have been able to increase the number of training places for doctors.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the Minister tell us on whom the Treasury is dependent, as he said that

871
funding depends on the Treasury? Furthermore, is it not inevitable that there should have been a crisis in the National Health Service once the Government had accepted the spending limits of the previous government?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it was quite right for the Government to focus during their first two years on getting the economy and public finances right and on a stable footing. Having done that, the Government are committed to real, sustained, long-term growth in the National Health Service, in great contrast to the gross under-investment of the party opposite over 18 years.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have cheated by removing from the waiting lists tens of thousands of patients with varicose veins, sebaceous cysts and lipomas who have been denied surgery altogether? Those are often poor people who have to go into the private sector. That is an example of the Government grinding their heels into the faces of the poor and the disabled.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, the basis of the statistics in relation to waiting lists has not changed since the Government came into power. With regard to varicose veins, I remind the noble Lord that he should go back to the introduction of the internal market. It was at that stage that operations such as those for varicose veins were listed by health authorities as excluded treatments.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in terms of modernisation of the health service, the provision of advice and information to patients and their families as and when they want it is of the utmost importance and that,, in that regard, the provision of NHS Direct and the plans for walk-in centres have been of extreme importance to patients and their families?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. I believe that NHS Direct has proved to be an enormous boon in the giving of sensible advice by experienced nurses. By the end of this year, the whole of the country will be covered by NHS Direct. It is but one feature of our general modernisation programme.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the other day the noble Lord rightly reminded the House that we cannot obtain more medical treatment for cancer operations until the oncologists are in place. We must expect an increase in the number of oncologists in particular, and in various other specialisms. They are to come from the medical schools. Will the Minister now tell us what he is doing to increase the output from the medical schools and perhaps which medical schools he has in mind to be expanded in this particular operation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to refer to the importance of the increased
872
number of doctors coming through for medical training. We expect to expand the number of those places by about 1,000 over the next few years. Of course, that very much underpins the more general point about the programme and process of modernisation. Given that it takes seven years or so to train a doctor, the pace of change in many services can operate only according to the number of doctors that can be brought into the system. The same applies to nurses. In relation to cancer services, in addition to looking at workforce issues, I believe that the biggest improvement that we can expect to see will also come about by the better organisation of services. The implementation of the Calman/Hine recommendations and the development of networks of care for cancer will enable us to improve the service at a quick pace.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say twice that the Government had dismantled the internal market? If that is the case, why did his noble friend Lord Winston say that the claim that the internal market had been dismantled was "deceitful"?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, because my noble friend was wrong. We have replaced the internal market. We have a system which is based on partnership, co-operation and working together, rather than the crude internal market which forces hospitals to compete with hospitals, nurses to fight with nurses, and doctors to compete with doctors.

Burma: Tourist Advice
2.52 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government
What advice they offer to British tourists planning to visit Burma.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, our travel advice says that the political situation remains unsettled; visitors to Burma can visit only officially designated areas; some ethnic insurgents remain active in Burma, particularly in border areas; and that visitors should seek medical advice before travelling. The full text of our latest travel advice for Burma can be found on the FCO website, on Ceefax or by telephoning our travel advice unit. We have drawn attention in Parliament, in correspondence and on our website to the views of Burmese democratic leaders that tourism to Burma is inappropriate at present. I have placed a copy of our travel advice in the Library of the House.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that reply. I am not sure how often the tabling of a Question in your Lordships' House makes an immediate difference to what a government department does, but it seems to have happened in this case. Is my noble friend aware that I tabled my Question because I was concerned that,

873
when I looked at it in December, the travel advice on Burma issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office contained no reference whatever to human rights? Will she confirm that the FCO's website was changed last Friday so that, as she rightly says, the travel advice now includes a link to the letter by the late Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, to the chairman of ABTA in which he drew attention to the request from Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratic leader of Burma, that British tourists should not visit the country, as well as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office brief entitled Burma: Ten Years of Oppression?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that my noble friend's Question caused us to look at the two sites where information about Burma was entered. It was clear that a link between those two sites would ease the situation and make it easier for people to find out the full picture. Therefore, that link was arranged. I thank my noble friend for bringing the matter to our attention. However, all the information was available to those who wished to find it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said to the House, but is she aware that many of the hotels and the tourist infrastructure in Burma have been built by slave labour, often involving in particular the Kareni people and others from different ethnic minorities, who have been forcibly exploited and many of whom have even died during the creation of that tourist infrastructure? Is she further aware that in the past five years in the Karen state alone, some 30,000 Kareni people have died, 300,000 have been displaced, and that clearly that amounts to genocide? I welcome what she said to her noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. However, in reviewing the tourist policy, will she also review Her Majesty's Government position so far as concerns economic sanctions in order to bring them into line with those of the United States Government? Will she agree that it would be better to follow the brave lead given by the young British national, James Mawdsley, in campaigning for democratic rights in Burma, rather than seeing Burma as a potential tourist destination?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I join wholeheartedly with the noble Lord to say that we deplore the forced labour used in Burma. That has been a position upon which Her Majesty's Government have been consistent. Forced labour is one of a large number of human rights violations in Burma. The report in 1998 by the International Labour Organisation highlighted the use of forced labour in Burma and made three recommendations for the regime to implement. Your Lordships will know that we have continued to pursue the matter. I believe that the position taken by Her Majesty's Government in relation to unilateral financial sanctions is well known and there has been no change as far as concerns that policy. However, we have let no opportunity go by to make absolutely clear to the Burmese our revulsion at the oppressive nature of their regime. So far as
874
concerns James Mawdsley, of course, we appreciate that he has chosen that particular way to demonstrate his dissent in relation to the Burmese Government. However, our Government wish to take those courses which are most likely to bring about productive results.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in many of those parts of Burma which are closed to tourists and visitors, countless people are suffering and dying of starvation and disease, including the Kareni people, who are of particular concern to James Mawdsley, who is in prison partly to highlight their plight? Therefore, will the Government ask the SPDC regime to open parts of Burma not only to tourists but also to visitors concerned with humanitarian aid to see whether some relief might be brought to save the lives of those people in the closed areas?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have continued to work with all our interlocutors to try to ease the situation. Obviously, I hear what the noble Baroness says. She will be very aware that there are certain security difficulties in relation to NGOs working in that area. However, certainly our efforts in that regard will continue and we shall take every opportunity to do so. The noble Baroness will know that we co-sponsored the UN resolutions which condemned violations. We are working with our partners to co-ordinate action in the ILO, based on the Burmese regime's response to the ILO recommendations on forced labour, etc. Therefore, those efforts continue.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I have been spurred to my feet by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Will my noble friend comment further? I recognise the policy of sanctions on a unilateral basis, but the International Labour Organisation, of which I have the privilege of being vice-chairman of the governing body, carried a resolution at its 1999 international labour conference. That resolution was sponsored by me as a British worker representative and by other worker representatives, it was supported by 95 per cent of the conference and the vast majority of governments of the world, and it condemned Burma in no uncertain terms. This year we shall call on the United Nations and beyond for sanctions which go beyond those of the ILO, which are merely moral sanctions. In the same way as the Government were supportive during the 1999 conference, I hope that the Minister will support the strongest sanctions against this pariah regime.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is no doubt that my noble friend is right to describe Burma as a pariah regime. As I said earlier, we continue to work with our partners to co-ordinate the action. We supported the renewal of the EU common position on measures against Burma in October for a further six months. We look forward to discussions with our partners about the further measures which we may take. We shall support any such measures which are practical and effective.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, notwithstanding the advice that was given by the late Derek Fatchett, many important British tour operators and holiday firms are still advertising holidays in Burma. Will the noble Baroness renew the advice which Mr Fatchett gave by writing to all those companies urging them to cease operations altogether in that country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have written to those tour operators and continue to have contact with them. But the noble Lord will know that this is still a democratic country. We can exhort, suggest and persuade but we cannot compel. We shall continue in those efforts until the Burmese situation has eased.

Government Information Technology Projects
3 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked. Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the success of major information technology projects in the public sector.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, as I announced to the House in a Written Answer on 27th October of last year, my right honourable friend the other Minister of State for the Cabinet Office launched a major review of the handling of government information technology projects. It is considering best practice from within government, the private sector and overseas to produce recommendations to improve performance in that area in the future. It will identify the pillars which support successful information technology projects and make sure that those are in place at the start of projects so that future systems run effectively and deliver value for money.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating that statement. But is he aware from the recently published report of the Public Accounts Committee of another place that no fewer than 25 investigations have been carried out into IT problems in the public sector and that many of those have revealed very serious shortcomings indeed and cover a large number of government departments?
Will he also accept that, arising out of those inquiries, the overriding problems have been the poor specification of projects and inadequate project management which have led to several hundred million pounds of over-expenditure and massive delays? Will he accept, and will this be borne in mind in the inquiry which he has mentioned, that, unless those projects are delivered better in the future, the Government's plans in the White Paper of March 1999, Modernising Government, will be seriously jeopardised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the publication of the
876
Public Accounts Committee report. The Central Information Technology Unit review, to which I referred in the original Answer, is already addressing all the areas which the report has identified. I share the noble Lord's concern about the importance of making sure that those IT projects work, and proper specification at the outset is plainly one of the most important matters that needs to be addressed.
The scope of the Central IT Unit's review is wider than that covered by the Public Accounts Committee and is focused on ways in which to rectify the problems identified and to raise standards in the future. A representative of the National Audit Office who was involved with the production of the Public Accounts Committee report is on the steering committee for the review. The team continues to liaise closely with the National Audit Office on its work.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords. further to the Minister's original Answer about the inquiry being undertaken at the Cabinet Office, will the results of that be available in June, as was first indicated, and will the report be given to the public but through the Houses of Parliament rather than simply through a press briefing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is envisaged that the report will be ready in the early summer and it will be published.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, public spending watchdogs have already commented on the 40 projects across Whitehall which are experiencing delay and overspending. Will the noble and learned Lord indicate, in particular in relation to the Immigration Service and the Passport Agency, whether the testing has been completed and when the systems will be fully operative?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is much scope for further improvement in relation to the IND project, to which the noble Lord referred. However, in the past year, the IND has rolled out improved systems to a large number of staff. That includes the provision of e-mail and a stock letter system for case workers based in the Croydon office.

Business of the House: Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
As matters stand at present, we are due to take the Third Reading of the Kent County Council Bill tomorrow and the Third Reading of the Medway Council Bill on Wednesday. Both Bills raise exactly the same issues and it now appears that both Bills will be opposed by means of dilatory Motions.

877
I am sure that the House will agree that it would be undesirable to debate the same issues twice on successive days. Therefore, it may be for the convenience of the House if the two Bills are taken on the same day in order to avoid any duplication of debate. If this Motion is agreed to, both Bills will be taken tomorrow but the Motions on both Bills will still be taken separately.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Third Reading of the Medway Council Bill [H.L.] from Wednesday 19th January to Tuesday 18th January. —(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Government were elected on their pledge to put education at the top of their agenda, and we have been as good as our word. The scope of our ambitions and the pace of change have necessarily been great: 1998 saw two major pieces of education law on the statute book through which we have continued our drive to raise standards in schools, reform higher education funding and student support and enhance the effectiveness and standing of the teaching profession.
The Bill we are debating today represents a radical third stage of our reforms—the foundation for exciting developments in further education and training. That is not an area in which we have been standing still. Planned funding for training and enterprise councils (TECs) increased this year by £200 million compared with last year's spend, which is a 17 per cent rise, and there will be an increase of £30 million next year to add to that. We are also making the biggest ever investment in further education with an extra £365 million available for 2001–02, which is a 10 per cent increase over and above the £3.5 billion already announced for next year.
However, the current structures and systems for post-16 learning are letting us down. Too many people are "turned off" learning. Drop-out rates are too high, wasting resources and human potential. Quality of provision is patchy and levels of achievement are too variable and often too low; for example, in general FE colleges, qualification achievement rates vary from 34 per cent to 94 per cent. The percentage of young people successfully completing training funded by TECs ranges from 40 per cent to 70 per cent.
None of us can afford to let that situation continue. The Government have a vision of a learning society in which individuals, businesses and communities flourish and prosper. Equipping individuals for the skills and knowledge-based economy of the 21st century is a vital part of that vision. It is essential if we are to live up to the challenges which face us. There are still more than 6 million adults in the UK with no
878
formal qualifications. One in five adults in England has a lower level of literacy than is expected of an 11 year-old, and 170,000 16 to 18 year-olds in England are not in education, training or employment. In productivity we face a clear challenge. The UK's productivity gap with countries such as the US, France and Germany is substantial—up to one-third.
The Government are determined to raise standards, to increase and widen participation, and to tackle the skills deficit. We shall put in place structures to maximise our investment and to secure a more creative, strategic approach to post-16 learning, and we are putting employers in the driving seat. Forty per cent of LSC board members at both the national and local levels, together with the national chair and most local chairs, will have significant business or commercial experience. Indeed, the proposals of which this Bill is a part have been welcomed by the business community and their representatives, including national training organisations, the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI, which recently commented:
"We are pleased to see the Government taking a business-led and bottom-up approach to post 16 education and training. We have argued for a strong business voice in the new arrangements and the Government has taken our message on board".
Employers and individual learners alike can rightly expect a more straightforward system and a better service. At present, some 250 different bodies within at least three different systems are responsible for work-based learning and further education. We propose to bring these systems together under a single organisation: the learning and skills council. The LSC will focus on customer need, collaboration rather than competition, and on cutting out bureaucracy. This streamlined structure will release at least £50 million of savings; money which can be used to improve the quality of learning for the benefit of learners. In addition, an independent and rigorous inspection regime of all post-16 education and training will help to ensure that the LSC's annual budget—some £6 billion—is spent wisely and well, in the interests of the 6 million or so learners it is expected to serve.
The constituency of parties with an interest in this Bill is wide. Over and above individual learners, it includes employers, FE colleges, training providers, local authorities and the voluntary sector. I should like to thank the 1,100 such individuals and organisations who responded to our Learning to Succeed White Paper. Their views have informed our deliberations and their overwhelming support for the case for change has spurred us on. In particular I should like to thank TEC boards and their staff and the FEFC and its regional committees for their commitment and contributions over the past decade.
Before I describe the provisions of the Bill in more detail, I should like to announce how the Government will realise their commitment to introduce legislation this Session to reflect the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force on education. The task force was set up in December 1997 to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people within the context of our wider

879
society. It carried out its work with great enthusiasm and dedication and published its final report on 13th December of last year. There may have been some expectation that the Learning and Skills Bill would contain provisions which would take forward the recommendations of the task force in relation to post-16 education.
The Bill makes a number of important provisions for disabled people, in particular to improve the transition from school to other post-16 learning of young people with statements of special educational needs. However, we want to give full and proper attention to the recommendations of the task force and we believe this can best be achieved in a self-standing "disability in education" Bill to be introduced later this Session. That Bill will do two things. It will give effect to the recommendations of the task force in respect of both schools and post-16 education and will make provision in relation to special educational needs as foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech.
That approach offers the best opportunity to secure a coherent approach to disability across education. There is considerable expertise and interest in this House in both disability issues and special educational needs. I look forward to debating these matters once the Bill is introduced later this Session.
I turn to the detail of the Learning and Skills Bill. Part I of the Bill creates a new non-departmental public body: the learning and skills council. Subject to Parliament's approval, that new body will be responsible from April 2001 for the planning, funding and quality management of all post-16 education and training up to but not including higher education in England. In this, it will take on functions of the current Further Education Funding Council and of the 72 TECs in England. The Bill will do away with the incoherence and duplication from which we have suffered in the past.
Bringing together the worlds of learning and work is a principle at the very core of the Bill by which the LSC will serve the interests of individuals and employers, the consumers of learning. The LSC's two advisory committees—the adult learning and young people's learning committees—will ensure that individual learners and their needs are at the heart of the new regime. We want employers to be involved in planning and supporting learning provision and the LSC to have a clear focus on securing provision which will help meet the skill needs of the economy at both national and local levels.
National training organisations must play a central role in the new arrangements. Through their skills foresights work, they are uniquely placed to provide the LSC with information on future sector skills needs. It will be important for the LSC and NT0s to work together at national and local level in the planning and implementation of workforce development strategies.
The local arms of the LSC will have discretionary funding with which, for example, to pump-prime workforce development initiatives designed to support employers' training and skills needs, building on the success of TECs in this area. Local LSCs will work
880
with the University for Industry to break down barriers to learning by encouraging and funding new ways to learn. That will be critical in ensuring that we build the capacity of communities to overcome generations of disadvantage. As we laid out in the LSC prospectus, one of the key objectives we will set the LSC is that of promoting equal opportunities, especially for groups who have traditionally suffered from discrimination and disadvantage. The LSCs will build close links between learning, skills and economic development, supporting the regional priorities identified by the regional development agencies and working with the Small Business Service. The RDAs have already played a major role in advising the Government on the boundaries for the local arms. This they did taking full account of the economic interests and structures in their areas in their recommendation for the 47 local LSCs and a co-ordinating body to support the five local LSCs in London.
The links between learning and work must feature throughout the new regime and at all levels. The LSC's powers to fund education-business links, including work experience and teacher placements, for example, will draw in teachers, secondary school pupils and employers.
This Government believe in learning for all, and that is what the learning and skills council will deliver. Its first duty, as set out in Clause 2, reflects our determination to give an entitlement to education or training to all 16 to 19 year-olds—our citizens, workers and entrepreneurs of tomorrow. The council's second duty, as set out in Clause 3, will require the LSC to provide opportunities for all adults to be able to continue to learn throughout their lives. Participation levels for both age groups must be raised, especially among those not traditionally engaged by learning. Indeed, the Bill will place a duty on the LSC to encourage all individuals to engage in learning. This is our commitment to the principle of learning and to the principle of lifelong learning.
The LSC will be taking on a great deal, becoming responsible for the fragmented functions delivered currently by the FEFC, local education authorities and TECs. We also expect the LSC to take a fresh and creative approach to learning in the 21st century, unfettered by the barriers of the present system. We are doing away with the artificial distinction that existing legislation imposes as to what LEAs and the FEFC can fund. The LSC will fund learning that leads to qualifications and learning that does not. It will set learning in the wider economic and social context by extending its focus beyond the needs of institutions to the important provision offered outside schools and colleges.
Quality will be the byword for the new regime. Securing quality is an express part of the LSC's main duties, at Clauses 2 and 3. We intend that the council should draw up an annual quality improvement strategy as part of the high-level, long-term planning required under Clause 16. Quality must he at the top of our agenda and we are determined to ensure that the LSC will have the tools to do the job.

881
Part and parcel of the Bill and the new learning regime it heralds will be the creation of a comprehensive, rigorous and independent inspection regime for post-16 learning based on four key elements, as set out in Part III. First, we will establish a new adult learning inspectorate—ALI—which will be fully independent but accountable as a non-departmental public body, to take on the inspection of all post-19 learning other than higher education and of all post-16 government-funded work-based training. The new body will offer more penetrating scrutiny of adult learning, particularly that outside the qualifications framework, and build on the good work of the FEFC and Training Standards Council to promote a culture of continuous improvement by providers.
Secondly, we will harness Ofsted's rigour and experience in inspecting schools and local authorities by extending its remit to include learning provision for 16 to 19 year-olds in the FE sector—for example, in sixth form colleges. Thirdly, the common inspection framework that ALI and Ofsted will be required to agree will ensure that the two inspectorates work effectively together in undertaking joint inspections where their remits overlap—notably in FE colleges.
Fourthly, they will work side by side to carry out inspections of all learning for 16 to 19 year-olds in a given area. Together with the action planning and follow-up to inspections for which providers and the LSC will be responsible, those measures will ensure that education and training providers aspire to the highest standards.
The LSC and the new regime of which it will be at the centre will be about partnership, collaboration and joined-up government on the ground. Close working with local authorities will be crucial because of their important strategic role in furthering the social and economic interests of their communities, and they are well placed to be leading providers of learning provision funded by the LSC. Our proposals make particular recognition of local education authorities' special role in the world of post-16 learning by involving them early in the planning process.
Clauses 22 and 23 set out how, as part of preparing their plans, local LSCs will agree with local authorities the provision that they will be expected to secure and the resources to be made available. Local learning partnerships, too, will play their vital part in ensuring that provision matches the aspirations of local communities. The Secretary of State will be requiring local LSCs to consult the partnerships.
We are confident that local authorities will respond positively and prosper under the new regime. That is why we are guaranteeing continuity of funding to LEAs for post-16 learning for the first two years of the new arrangements, provided that they maintain their current level of spend and draw up and effectively implement lifelong learning plans.
The LSC will also be involved in funding and planning school sixth form provision, which will ensure a genuinely coherent approach to post-16
882
learning across the FE/schools divide. That objective found favour during the consultation from head teachers, foundation schools, colleges and many others. We are also guaranteeing levels of funding for their school sixth forms—a provision that will, in time, be funded by the LSC. This Government are interested in standards, not structures—which is why, for example, we are in the Bill improving inspection arrangements for 16 to 19 learning. The LSC's involvement in funding school sixth forms through LEAs is the only way to achieve coherence, quality and choice for all young people. School sixth forms are an important and valuable part of the choices available to young people. We intend to extend those choices and therefore Clause 95 will enable LEAs and others to propose the establishment of schools that cater principally for 16 to 19 year-olds.
Part II will establish the national council for education and training for Wales, which will have broadly similar functions to the LSC in England but with some variation tailored to meet Welsh circumstances. Part IV extends the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Wales to take on wider responsibilities for the inspection of post-16 learning provision up to degree level in the Principality.
Part V makes provision on other issues, aspects of which will impact on the activities of the LSC in England and of the council in Wales.
Clauses 93 and 94 will allow us fully to develop what are currently known as individual learning accounts, which are an important strand in our strategy for lifelong learning. They are an expression of our vision of government, employers and individuals sharing responsibility for learning. The accounts are being designed with the aim of encouraging individuals to see the benefits of investing in their own learning and of encouraging employers to support that learning. Account holders will be provided with a range of benefits, including discounts on learning. We made it clear in our 1997 manifesto that 1 million accounts would he opened by 2002. The Bill sets out the means by which learning accounts may be defined and discounts on learning secured. The Bill also enables the LSC to have a role in promoting the accounts and delivering the discounts.
Clauses 99 to 108 lay the statutory foundation for the establishment in England of a coherent, comprehensive and accountable support service for all 13 to 19 year-olds, whatever their needs and circumstances. The teenage years are a time of major transition. The Social Exclusion Unit's Bridging the Gap report of last year identified how and why some young people are particularly vulnerable during that transition. This Government are determined to take action to ensure that all young people receive the support that they need to sustain their motivation, aim high and maximise their achievement. Underachievement at all levels threatens the individual's sense of well-being and purpose, their chances of rewarding employment and ability to engage in the community. The clauses provide the legislative framework through which we intend to bring together and build upon the range of existing support services

883
for young people—services that, at present, are too often fragmented, ephemeral and inconsistent in terms of availability, quality and ease of access.
Delivery of the new service will be through a network of trained personal advisers working in local multi-agency teams. We will be making an announcement shortly, giving more detail about what that will mean in practice.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to respond to requests from various bodies for improvements to existing legislation. Clause 109 will allow us to make arrangements for newly qualified teachers to serve their induction period in sixth-form colleges or other FE sector institutions offering a suitable teaching environment. Clause 111 will remove some legal obstacles to desirable collaboration between schools and colleges, so that they may better tailor education for young people with particular needs. Clause 112 will deal with a long-standing anomaly whereby the governing bodies of a small number of sixth-form colleges do not have corporate status.
The previous administration merged the departments of education and employment. I believe that that was the right thing to do. But they failed to make the key links between skills, learning, employability and business where they matter most—in learning and skills provision to meet the needs of individuals, businesses, communities and the economy of the 21st century.
This Bill is the foundation from which we are determined to develop structures which will deliver a post-16 learning and skills system for this country based firmly on quality, coherence and choice. The constituency of interests is wide and the stakes are high. Getting it right will mean striking the right balances—the balance between national coherence and local flexibility; the balance between providing learning for all and focusing on those individuals most in need.
The challenge to build this new learning and skills system is a major task for all who currently work to improve opportunities for individuals, to regenerate communities and to improve our economic performance. The Learning and Skills Bill will be instrumental in our lifelong learning goals and is a fitting way to set a path to the new learning age. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Blackstone.)
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the Government's case for this Bill.
The Secretary of State makes great claims for the Bill when he pronounces that,
"waste, duplication and unnecessary competition would be stripped away".
884
It is an extraordinary claim when one considers the plethora of new, unelected quangos and the sheer spaghetti-like network of bodies that share responsibility for the guidance, recreation, education and training of 13 to 19 year-olds.
The proposals set out in this Bill are bureaucratic. They will result in duplication. They are confusing. They will be costly and divisive. They will remove local flexibility and they will pose a real threat to sixth forms; and to have left outside of this Bill arrangements to meet the needs of people with disabilities really is unfortunate.
When a Bill comes before Parliament the time for visionary statements and general broad-brush descriptions of the proposals must give way to a detailed explanation and clarification by the Minister of the way in which these measures will actually be delivered on the ground. To that end I have to admit to great disappointment when I attended a Bill briefing last Wednesday along with other Members of both Houses and representatives from other interested bodies.
The Minister, Mr Malcolm Wicks, who addressed the meeting was unable, or perhaps unwilling, to answer questions of detail. At one stage he intimated that the time for detail was when the Bill was before Parliament. Therefore we look now to the Minister in this House for some enlightenment. However, it is an open secret that officials in the department are still grappling with the details of policy.
The hallmark of government legislation during the first two-and-a-half years of this Parliament has been the degree to which the Bills represent structural framework changes, with the detail for implementation subordinated to secondary legislation or, worse, through directions by the Secretary of State. This Bill is no exception.
I was struck by how many of the respondents to the consultative documents broadly welcomed the thrust of the Bill. They welcomed the promised coherence for post-16 education that is intended to result from the proposals. However, in almost all cases they went on to query how the policies would work in practice and how duplication and confusion could be avoided; and they sought definition and clarification of the respective roles for the many existing and new bodies operating in the field of post-16 education.
Once again, the law of unintended consequences looms large as a result of not thinking through the practical and effective delivery of the service. The Bill sets out a top-down, highly centralised and controlled approach to reform. This was described by the Institute of Directors as proposals which,
"could degenerate into a wasteful and ineffective form of centralised manpower planning".
Far from increasing flexibility at local level, the proposals will in fact inhibit sensible local solutions to local situations. The level of bureaucracy that will result and that will have to be funded is breathtaking.

885
A paper produced by a representative body of the electronics industry called for the need to cut through the complexity, the jargon and the bureaucracy and to achieve focus of purpose. The paper continued:
"the Government has published a number of Green and White Papers, parts of which have merit, but which tend to concentrate on the organisation and process of education delivery and the surrounding funding and advisory structures. It has set up many initiatives, targets and schemes and promises more of the same. Reorganising the educational bureaucracy, new inspection schemes and increased control give an illusion of progress and efficiency".
The paper went on to say:
"Industrial experience shows such activities consume resources and attention, and put the focus upon internal activities rather than upon the output and upon the customer, the educated and motivated person. The plethora of Government announcements are introducing a level of complexity which is counterproductive to clarity of purpose and persuasion, although taken individually each idea has some merit".
In more colloquial language, this Bill does not reflect joined-up thinking or appreciate the real focus for service and resources; that is, the consumer. As my honourable friend in another place, Theresa May, said, bureaucracy will increase; there will now be a national learning and skills council, rural development agencies, almost 50 local learning and skills councils and life-long learning partnerships before one even gets to a school or a college, let alone a student. In fact, right across all departments a non-elected and non-accountable government outside of elected government is being created. The growth of quangos, task forces, political advisers and spin doctors is unprecedented. So too is the amount of funding that is being top-sliced by government from core-funding, especially in health and education, in order to pay for a bureaucratic superstructure which results in denying essential funds to our schools, colleges and universities throughout the country.
Local authorities are much affected by this. Under the School Standards and Framework Bill, organisation committees and adjudicators were created to second-guess LEAs. I have to say, as an aside, that I was delighted to see that Wandsworth Local Education Authority won its case against the adjudicator, Peter Downes, who was found to have exceeded his powers when ordering schools to reduce the number of pupils they admitted by selection on ability.
Under this Bill, local education authorities are to lose many functions and funding powers and are reduced to consultee status under the umbrella of the unelected learning and skills council. The only consolation for LEAs was the assurance given by Mr Wicks, not repeated today, that LEAs would be represented on each of the local skills councils.
This Bill is more significant for what it leaves out than for what it addresses. For example, many young people, particularly in the age group 13 to 19, are in fact being educated in schools. There is nothing in the Bill which addresses the interaction between the demands on schools arising from the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Schools were promised
886
intervention with a very light touch. However, the powers proposed in this Bill over inspection arrangements, the future of sixth forms, careers advice and the youth service delivery will impact on many schools, including community schools where education both formal and recreational is provided to all age groups. Equally, there is no mention of the interaction between further and higher education. As for the planning of services, Mr Blunkett says in paragraph 3.1 of the Learning and Skills Prospectus that,
"the planning and funding framework for the Learning and Skills Council will increase transparency and simplicity and will cut out layers of bureaucracy".
Will the Minister explain how this can be so, when the level of bureaucracy as a result of the School Standards and Framework Act already requires 13 statutory plans to be completed and updated annually and a further four plans, which are relevant to the bidding process, including education action zones, information, communication and technology and life long learning plans, all of which impact on the age range to which this Bill is subject? This Bill will add considerably to that burden.
Finally, on the subject of planning, will the local performance plan (the mother of all plans arising from the Local Government Bill) which includes services to 13 to 19 year-olds, have to be adjusted to take account of aspects of this Bill?
As Andrew Povey writes in his excellent pamphlet Plans Plans Plans, it is estimated that the 150 local education authorities in England and Wales are now collectively producing over 2,600 plans each year. The manpower involved in the production, scrutiny and review of these plans is formidable. It is estimated that a complete set of these plans for every LEA in the country would take the equivalent of 1,000 man-years to complete. Is it any wonder that schools and colleges are being starved of resources?
Will the Minister also explain how personnel time and money can be saved when the following, not entirely inclusive, list of bodies must work in partnership through centrally-directed collaboration, negotiation and consultation the national learning and skills council, local learning and skills councils, lifelong learning partnerships, rural development agencies, the Department for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State, special needs organisations, local education authorities, employers' organisations—such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors and chambers of trade and commerce—the Small Business Service, the Higher Education Funding Council, the Employment Service, government offices, small business service franchises, Ofsted, the adult learning inspectorate, local learning partnerships, the Careers Service, the University for Industry, education business partnerships, education action zones, organisation committees, the education adjudicators and national training organisations, not forgetting the individual schools and colleges?
There is no reference in the Bill to national training organisations, which is to be regretted. However, my noble friend Lord Oxfuird will refer to the concerns of

887
national training organisations, in particular those of the highly respected Engineering Marine Training Association.
This Bill gives rise to considerable anxiety about the future of our sixth forms, especially the smaller ones or those whose numbers fluctuate from year to year. Parents who choose sixth-form education for their sons and daughters do so from choice. It should be a matter for them AS to whether they are satisfied with the quality of education. Will the Minister reaffirm that the guarantee of continuing funding per pupil in sixth forms will be sustained in real terms, especially where numbers are rising?
Will the Minister also give an assurance that any disparities of funding between schools and further education colleges will be addressed by levelling up and not by levelling down? Moreover, if and when the principle of equivalent funding for equivalent courses is introduced, will work-based training be treated equally?
Schedule 7 to the Bill constitutes the greatest threat to sixth forms, with powers vested in the learning and skills council to propose the closure of "inadequate" sixth forms. What is the definition of "inadequate"? Is it a small number of pupils overall, a small number of pupils taking a particular subject, a school offering minority subjects, the results of students in any one or more years, or the cost of courses, which could discriminate against high-cost vocational courses? What weight will be given to the wishes of staff, governors, students, parents and/or local education authorities where they wish to keep a sixth form in the event of a recommendation to close? Who, other than Ofsted, would be authorised to make an inspection? Would the Government contemplate a minimum period between inspections? Why is it that the Bill allows the first report on a school to be one that pre-dates this Bill?
Can the Minister say what calculation is to be used to top-slice sixth-form funding in order to re-route it through learning and skills councils to local education authorities and then down to schools? What will the administration costs be of this extraordinary, convoluted system of sixth-form funding? It is difficult not to conclude that sixth forms are destined for the same rocky road as our grammar schools. It is interesting to note that where the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education find it politically difficult or embarrassing to abolish something, they create an arm's length mechanism to achieve those ends—just as they did with our grammar schools.
The financial effects of this Bill beg many questions. In paragraph 202 of the Explanatory Notes the Government cannot give an assessment of cost to meet the additional powers to provide services which support youth participation in education. In paragraph 203 the Government cannot give an assessment of the additional funds needed by Ofsted and in paragraph 204 the Government cannot say how much additional funding will be needed to meet the full costs of the adult learning inspectorate. In paragraph
888
205 the Government claim that it is "too early" to estimate accurately the costs of the national council for education and training in Wales.
Yet—surprise, surprise—the Government can say unequivocally that the savings as a result of the measures in the Bill will be £50 million. On what basis was this calculation made? Manpower figures are also puzzling. How many publicly funded posts are engaged in training and enterprise councils and separately in the Training Standards Council? Will the Government make available the number of posts, and their description, engaged in post-16 education administration at present, together with an estimate of numbers and a description of people planned to be in post as a result of this Bill?
Time does not allow me to explore other areas of concern. I can do no more than list some of them at this stage: the funding of residential colleges and colleges offering distance learning; how the operational freedom enjoyed by further education colleges will he safeguarded; how will confusion, repetition and unnecessary bureaucracy be avoided by the arrangements for the inspection of mixed-age programmes; how did the budget of £5 billion for the learning skills council, referred to by Mr Blunkett in June, become £6 billion when addressing businessmen in No. 10 Downing Street in December; what progress has been made with the individual learning accounts pilots, when will the full scheme be in place and at what cost, and, finally, who will administer the scheme? The training and enterprise councils are concerned about a number of matters, especially the role of employers and business, and possibly about there being too much emphasis on the supply side.
Given the concentration on central direction and the focus on skills for work, in particular for the 16 to 19 year-olds, what safeguards will there be to protect adult education not necessarily leading to qualifications, which is undertaken by many—especially the retired, the elderly those with disabilities, those who enjoy learning as a respite from caring or other domestic ties and those who just choose to develop a skill, a hobby or a particular recreational interest? For many it is a lifeline.
There is also concern that over-concentration on recommendations from the exclusion unit may well result in services to the 93 per cent of young people who do not require special measures being reduced. Will the Minister confirm that government money cannot be spent on setting up shadow structures, as set out in this Bill, until the Second Reading stage is reached in another place?
If we are to believe what we read and hear in media reports, those on the next considerable list of the Government's compliant friends are about to be elevated to this place. Therefore, the challenge for this House of carrying out its primary task of objective scrutiny will be the greater. However, I can promise the House that my noble friends on these Benches shall not be wanting in the energy and enthusiasm needed to hold the Government to account over the coming weeks and months. The themes will be—a war on

889
bureaucracy, the extension of choice and diversity, the protection of what is best, the maximum devolution of funds to schools and colleges and to make a reality of the Secretary of State's own words to strip away waste and duplication.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to begin by giving a broad welcome to the Bill. We believe that the provision of a comprehensive framework for post-16 education and training is long overdue. We welcome the width and the depth of consultation that has taken place in its preparation and we are particularly appreciative of the degree to which the Minister has dealt separately with the Welsh issue and has consulted the Welsh Assembly and the interests of the appropriate authorities in Wales.
Overall we welcome the range of the Bill and its emphasis both on broad strategy and on detailed delivery. From a strategic point of view, as the Minister made clear, there is much discussion these days of what is called the "knowledge-based economy". Underlying this Bill is broad acknowledgement and understanding on all sides of the challenges that new technologies and the knowledge-based economy will pose and of the need to upgrade skills and educational achievements. For Britain this is not a new challenge. Back in the 1880s, Britain's poor performance compared with that of the then newly industrialising countries of Germany and the United States was blamed on poor levels of education and training. A century later, in the 1980s, the work of Professor Sig Prais and Hilary Steed at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research showed clearly how little had changed.
For my part, the importance of the issue of education and training together was very much brought home by the work of Professor Prais at the national institute. I remember in particular one article that appeared in the early 1980s which compared what was known as a "matched pair" of companies in Britain and in Germany in the engineering sector. The German company's productivity was 60 per cent higher than that of the British company. Why was that? It was not a matter of size; they were a matched pair of companies of similar size; nor was it a matter of the vintage of machinery. In fact, both plants used machinery produced by the same German manufacturer. It was not a question of hours worked and tea breaks in Britain. The workers in both plants worked similar hours.
However, when one "peeled back the skin of the onion" to discover precisely what was in the centre, it was discovered that the British machines were idle for almost 50 per cent of the time. When they broke down those who operated them did not know how to repair them, whereas in Germany the operator was usually able to fix them. Often, the plant engineer who was subsequently consulted did not have the necessary expertise and the service engineer had to be sent for so that the machine was idle for a whole day. When the
890
service engineer had fixed the machine and it was back in working order, there was such a backlog of work that the machine was worked hell for leather and broke down again.
The service engineers reported that the main reason for machines breaking down was the build-up of iron filings. There was no routine maintenance of the machines, whereas in Germany the apprentices stripped down the machines every Friday afternoon and left them oiled, repaired and ready to start again the following Monday morning. Why could not the same procedures apply in the United Kingdom? There were no apprentices and even where apprentices were employed, service engineers reported that they had been unsuccessful in training those who had attended their training courses because, they said, they did not have the basic mathematical ability to take in the mathematics required for the first level of training.
All told, that is a sorry story which highlights two things: first, the need for vocational training and, secondly, the fact that vocational training must be backed up by high quality education.
These failings underlay many of the reforms which took place in the 1980s. We saw what was then the Manpower Services Commission translated into the local TECs, mirroring in many senses the role of the German chambers of commerce. What was then the youth training scheme was transformed by the development of the national vocational qualifications. The national curriculum was introduced in an attempt to upgrade educational achievements. The aim therefore was to operate both on the education and the training systems.
What have we achieved since the 1980s? Sadly, I believe, it is still a story of failure, not achievement. One in five of the workforce remains what is known as "functionally illiterate"; that is, unable to read well enough to understand the detailed instructions that come with any machine they have to operate. Some 170,000 young people between 16 and 19 still receive no education and training and many are unemployed and in many senses unemployable.
The "competition" model established by the Conservative government in the 1980s whereby it was hoped that public and private providers of further education and training would compete and thereby increase options, access and the number of those in vocational education and training has just not worked. Instead, we find TECs and Business Links often at each others' throats and further education colleges at odds with sixth-form colleges, both trying to entice students away from sixth forms in schools. In spite of all the incentives, more students are taking non-NVQ vocational qualifications than NVQs. The take-up of modern apprenticeships has also been disappointing. Only a third of the target number of places are filled with a disproportionate number in hairdressing, the caring services and retailing.
In 1979, we lamented the fact that the number of apprentices had fallen to 150,000 young people. Today, there are fewer than one-fifth that number—fewer than 30,000 modern apprenticeships. None of

891
this bodes well for filling Britain's oft reported deficit in craft and technician skills. The national training targets envisaged 60 per cent of young people reaching A-level or equivalent standards by the year 2000. Instead, the figure is around the 50 per cent mark. Instead of all employees being involved in some kind of training or development activities. one-third of adult employees receive none. Instead of half the workforce aiming for qualifications within the NVQ framework, only one in five are doing so. Instead of half the large and medium-sized employers achieving the Investors in People award, the total remains well below 20 per cent, with over one-third of all employers admitting they are unaware of the initiative. I regret to say that these targets have been not only missed; they have been missed by miles!
How far will the proposed learning and skills council answer these criticisms and reverse these failures? As we know, it is a comprehensive framework which brings together the various agencies providing education and training provision for this age group and providing a common funding framework. At the local level it aims to build on the successful pattern of the lifelong learning partnerships where the objective was co-operation, not competition. By including youth services and careers guidance alongside the further education colleges, it is hoped to crack the social exclusion issue. By bringing in school sixth forms as well as sixth-form colleges at a time when the new A-levels are being introduced, it is hoped to bridge the status gap between NVQs and A-levels just as, with adult education, it is hoped that the term "lifelong learning" can apply as much to the pursuit of leisure and cultural activities as to vocational education.
As I have made clear from these Benches, we welcome the attempt to provide this comprehensive framework and to get away from the fragmentation that has plagued provision in this area. We welcome too the injection of co-operation and partnership into a field where competition has been so destructive. We endorse wholeheartedly the Government's commitment to reversing the longstanding failures in this area.
That said, however, we are not without criticism. First and foremost, we object to the democratic deficit at the heart of the Bill. Why should we have yet another unaccountable quango? Why, when pledged to 40 per cent business representation, is there no statutory representation on either the national or the local learning and skills councils from local authorities or local education authorities? The answer to the Government's fears of the dinosaur tendencies of their own backwoodsmen or of Tory councils is not to avoid them by yet more centralisation in what is already the most centralised of European countries but to reform the voting system for local government so that these rotten boroughs no longer exist.
Secondly, we do not understand why the Government have not used this occasion to reinforce regional boundaries. Why is it necessary to set up different geographical boundaries for the lower-tier authorities from the ones that exist already under the regional development agencies? Surely, the sensible
892
way forward would have been to make the two authorities coterminous, and to ensure that they worked together and, in due course, became answerable to one elected assembly. As it is, the links between the two are at best tenuous. The aim is that the local learning and skills councils should work closely with the regional development agencies and the Small Business Service, but it is by no means clear how that will happen.
I cannot emphasise too much that we see this as an opportunity lost. If we look around Europe and at the United States, we see that the dynamic is now coming from the regional level. Often, the regional authority acts as a catalyst to new development and the pulling together of local capabilities, with universities and colleges at their centre and activities clustered around them. Certainly, with its emphasis on clusters, this is what the DTI has in mind for the regional development agencies. It is what we are beginning to see in the life-long learning partnerships. It does not make sense to put education institutions on a different axis; nor, given the growing importance of local universities as providers of all kinds of post-level 3 training, does it make sense to leave them out of the local learning and skills council net.
Moreover, nothing much will happen—certainly nothing to mirror the kinds of developments to be seen now in other European countries, even in Ireland—unless the Treasury is prepared to offer the RDAs and the local learning and skills councils much greater discretion over funding. I say again: Britain is the most centralised country in Europe. Unless and until we unlock and free up the creativity and the initiative that lies dormant at the local level we shall see nothing of this bottom-up burgeoning of activity that is stimulating growth in America and other countries in Europe.
Sadly, on these Benches we have come to the conclusion that the Bill and the proposals incorporated into it lack the vision that we had hoped to see—a vision apparent in the Green Papers and the White Papers which preceded the Bill and which shines through in Helena Kennedy's 1997 report, Learning Works.
It is common ground that, in future, education and training will be life-long and that individuals will need to plan in terms of moving in and out of education and training, on a full-time or part-time basis, throughout their lives. There needs to be an "open door" system which encourages everyone, always, to go a little further. To achieve this, the system needs to offer a common unit of account—or, as some would say, a credit system—in order that individuals can mix and match courses and institutions to their own needs and preferences. For example, 20 credit units earned, let us say, on a day-release training course could be topped up to a diploma level by credits earned with evening courses undertaken in one's own time.
It is this vision which underlies the idea of individual learning accounts, but it is not clear where individual learning accounts now come into the act. Yes, I know we have got Clauses 93 and 94. They are

893
no longer called individual learning accounts. They are now "qualifying accounts"—and it is by no means clear how they will fit into the overall picture painted in the Bill.
Speaking of vision, what has happened to the proposals from the National Skills Task Force? The prospectus makes clear that all tuition costs for nationally recognised qualifications up to level 3 for 16 to 19 year-olds will be publicly funded. But what about the task force proposals that this should apply to 16 to 24 year-olds? Where do the 18 to 24 year-olds fit into the new picture? Will they be covered by the youth committee or by the adult committee of the learning and skills council? What of the task force's latest (third report) recommendation for income contingent loans for further education? I should like to ask the Minister whether there will be proposals to take this forward.
We have two further criticisms of the Bill. First, the issue of inspection. Why is it considered necessary to have two different sets of inspectors for this sector of education? Surely, it does not make sense to have both Ofsted and the adult learning inspectorate. How can you possibly achieve a consistent set of standards across this very wide range of institutions unless you have only one set of inspectors with one agenda? We cannot see that it is appropriate to bring Ofsted, with its school-based experience and school-based standards, into the adult sector. Surely, the answer is to have only the adult learning inspectorate, backed up by the work of the National Audit Office, in this whole sector.
Secondly, we see no reason why it is necessary to set up a separate careers service for this sector. In our view, a single integrated service is required for all post-13 students, whether in school or in further education. It is not clear how the new support arrangements will be funded. How is it proposed to ensure that all young people, irrespective of their ability or their position in society, will progress to appropriate—not just any—learning in their next phase of life? They need not only advice and information but positive guidance on the choices available. This becomes more important as the range of choice becomes more complex.
Good advice and guidance can help to reduce dropout rates. We have seen how, in the further education sector, improved guidance has helped retention and completion rates. But the waste through wrong choices is still considerable. For example, even in universities there is now a drop-out rate of about 20 per cent. It is vital therefore that we have a proper, integrated and well-resourced careers service for all young people.
As I have made clear, broadly speaking we welcome the Bill. It brings together a vitally important set of institutions, many of which have emerged in the past two decades in attempts to reverse Britain's endemic failures in education and training. To date, as I have indicated, they have failed to achieve that objective. Implicit in the Bill is the view that the cause of failure lies in the fragmentation of effort among these institutions and that signally they have failed to get their act together. We share with the Government the view that co-operation in this sector will achieve more
894
than competition. There is need to build on the nascent co-operation emerging at the local level in the life-long learning partnerships.
However, we remain wary of the top-down nature of the Bill. We do not share the Government's faith in the leadership of the business sector—which, to our way of thinking, has, time and again, neglected disgracefully its training responsibilities, particularly among those with fewest qualifications—and we object to the democratic deficit at the centre of the Bill. We share many of the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that too much time will be spent on drawing up plans and on reports of how the plans are being implemented rather than on delivering front-line services.
Perhaps, above all, we regret the continuing lack of vision. Today, at the dawn of this new millennium, with new technologies challenging so many of our accepted structures, we have an exciting opportunity to build afresh. Sadly, while worthy in what we are seeking to achieve, this Bill does not rise to that challenge.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her broad welcome for the Bill.
On Friday afternoon I attended a conference organised by the National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education, where its director described the Bill and the prospectus that preceded it as a new dawn for adult learning. Although he had a number of concerns to share with us, he nevertheless began the conference by giving 10 reasons to be cheerful about the Government's proposals. In the discussions that followed, while again there were concerns and requests for clarification, I heard no dissent from this general warm welcome. Believe me, it is unusual in the world of education to hear such a response to any government's policies—and I place emphasis on the policies rather than the Bill in particular, since the Bill provides the instruments rather than the substance of the policies set out in other publications.
In welcoming the Bill, I declare an interest as chairman of the University for Industry—the UfI—which the Government have established to be a flagship in creating demand for, and participation in, lifelong learning on a mass scale.
As someone who has been involved in various roles in education over the past 12 years, I was particularly pleased to hear the emphasis placed by the Minister on quality of provision and quality assurance. I also welcome the proposal on funding published last Monday in the consultation document that there should be a clear link between quality and the decisions of the new learning and skills council, and of the Employment Service, coupled with a proposition that those offering high quality provision should be able to expand where they can demonstrate demand. Strong quality assurance systems will facilitate the entry of new providers to the system so that it can continue to benefit from refreshment and new talent.

895
While still on the subject of funding, I welcome the intention expressed in the same document that,
"allowance should to made for up to four core elements in the funding of adult education—the recruitment of learners, retention, achievement and disadvantage".
The judgment of history on the Government's policies for adult learning will turn on the extent to which they can create a truly inclusive learning society by bringing into learning and skills development the multitude of individuals who dusted their sandals after leaving school, intending never to return; the disabled and the disadvantaged: and the mass of small firms who hitherto have seen the learning on offer as remote to their specific needs, costly, not available when and where they want A, or simply as something for which there is no time.
The key to the success of the Government's policies for adult learning is therefore attracting into learning the missing millions and, not less important, keeping them there, especially during the early weeks of engagement. Neither will be cheap; it means a major commitment of resource: skilled resource. I wish to assure the Government that the LAI intends to give every support to the learning and skills council in that great enterprise. Indeed, it is central to its mission. I hope that that will be reflected in the membership of both the national and local learning skills councils.
Earlier I referred to the importance of effective arrangements for quality assurance. Adult education also needs to be included within a rigorous framework of external inspection. The adult learning inspectorate is a welcome proposal. It is clearly right that, where the provision is for young people of under 19, as well as for adults, the inspection arrangements should include Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. Much as I respect the work of HMI, should like to ask the Government why, when the majority of students—possibly the vast majority in an FE college—are adults, the adult learning inspectorate is cast as a junior partner, with HMI in the lead? if there is one quality that my good friend the chief inspector has without question, it is the will to speak his mind. He may be relied upon to do that whether in the lead or in support of the joint inspection, and it would be an explicit vote of limited confidence in the new adult inspectorate to cast it in the subordinate role, even though the great majority of students in an institution may be adults.
Perhaps I may re turn to the question of quality and the need for success in retaining new adult learners. I welcome in particular the emphasis, at paragraph 5.24 in the prospectus, on the development and skills of the teachers and trainers themselves. It is surely right that all providers will have to demonstrate to their local learning and skills council that their staff have appropriate qualifications or have personal development plans leading to appropriate qualifications. It is on the supply of such staff, who are themselves practising what they preach by engaging in continuing professional development, that the long-term success of this policy will be founded. Teachers and trainers will need to have new
896
skills which can enable them and their students to benefit from the innovations that the new learning technologies can bring.
I turn now to the local learning and skills councils, where most of the action will be. I welcome the intention for emphasis to be placed on provision of representation for the worlds of industry and commerce. The Government have made specific commitments in that area. I should like to see a specific commitment to the inclusion of democratically elected members of local authorities and a clear articulation with the work of the local lifelong learning partnerships, which have so far had no statutory recognition, by including as a matter of right a representative of such local learning partnerships on local skills councils. I am sure that the Government will want the local councils to consult widely in developing their policies.
Perhaps I may offer one further brief comment on the composition of the local learning and skills councils. It is one of surprise that no provision has been made for chief officers to be members of the councils as a matter of right. The success of the councils will turn materially on the success of those chief officers and it is right that they should have the authority that comes from membership of the councils. I see that the Government have so provided for the national council and I suggest that they do likewise for the local councils.
Returning to the funding arrangements, while I see good reason for most of the funding flowing through local councils, I hope that the Government will recognise that, in the interests of effectiveness and reducing bureaucracy—dear though that was for 33 years of my life—it will often be right to fund national bodies through national arrangements rather than require them to refer to 47 separate councils. I have in mind the example of the learning hubs which the UfI is envisaging with major employers, trade unions and trade associations.
The Government will also need to give thought to the arrangements for funding the increasingly important area of on-line learning, where the learners and the tutors will not always fall within the same local boundaries. Most of all, I hope that the Bill will pave the way for arrangements which put the learners first and drive learning from that perspective. This is a great opportunity that should not be missed.
Perhaps I may finish by urging that the Bill is to be welcomed as a vehicle through which people are brought together in partnership at national and local levels with clear objectives in an enterprise which, to the extent it succeeds, will create an inclusive learning society that will bring in those who have consciously stood aside from learning. That is an economic imperative. But this is as much a moral and social issue as an economic one. We owe it to all our people to equip them to earn a decent standard of living in an increasingly competitive world and to participate effectively in society.
Although I have some questions, I welcome the Bill as a major paving stone in the pathway to the inclusive learning society which our people urgently need.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I have now spent over two principally very happy years in your Lordships' House. During that time I have seldom spoken at length, for the most part because my experience covers limited, or at least fairly specific, terrain. After a number of quite punishing hours in this Chamber I decided early on that it was unreasonably burdensome to impose personal opinions on your Lordships, most particularly on matters in which my expertise was, to say the least, somewhat limited. Today's debate—indeed, this Bill—is somewhat different.
I must start by declaring several interests I am patron of Skillset, the national training organisation for broadcast, film and multimedia; chairman of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, more popularly known as NESTA; and Chancellor of the University of Sunderland. Through these and other initiatives I have, over a period of some 30 years, found myself involved in any number of issues surrounding skills and training across a variety of institutions and industries.
I am a wholehearted supporter of the Bill. I believe that it is high time that we paved the way for a comprehensive, well-planned national strategy for learning and skills development—one that takes account of ever more rapid changes in the world of work; a strategy acknowledging that competence-based qualifications and lifelong learning will increasingly be at the heart of any fulfilling and stimulating life, as well as any viable economic future for the nation as a whole.
The era of a "job for life" has gone, quite possibly for ever. There will certainly be no return to the days when 10,000 men and women marched through the factory gates each morning, lunchboxes tucked under their arms, and kept on marching until, 40 years later, they collected their gold watch and clocked off for the last time, quietly slipping away to live out the rest of their days digging an allotment or looking after the grandchildren. For good or ill, the dominant local employer, the nine to five working day, the sole male breadwinner, all are essentially things of the past. They have been replaced by a whole series of overused buzzwords—"downsizing", "lifelong learning", "employability", "portfolio careers", "flexible working", "e-working"—that is to name just a handful—and, of course, "globalisation".
Our national reputation as the "workshop of the world" rested for decades on our unique manufacturing industries. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is no longer even remotely possible to conceive of any nation having any unique manufacturing industry. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reminded us in his New Year's speech, for we in Britain,
"human capital is the chief resource. Developing it should be our national purpose for the 21st century".
The "knowledge economy" is no empty platitude, and its implications for learning and skills development are almost impossible to underestimate.
898
Those of your Lordships who might question that need look no further than the announcement a week ago today that America Online, the world's largest Internet company, is to acquire Time Warner, the world's largest traditional media company. This will create a 250 billion dollar "clicks and mortar" global giant combining the "old" and the "new" media. A company like America Online, which barely existed five years ago, was made possible by the development of the silicon chip; but the chip itself is virtually worthless. All the value in that company—and a myriad of other start-ups with individual stock market valuations far exceeding those of more established leviathans such as General Motors, Texaco and IBM—was created by the skills and knowledge of a relatively small number of fresh-faced dot.com wizards. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it was 10th, not 1st, January that marked the beginning of the 21st century as I believe we will come to know it.
In an era when manufacturing was, as I mentioned a moment ago, all powerful, perhaps it was right to construct training strategies around specific regional and industrial strengths: shipbuilding here, steel there, railways yet somewhere else; perhaps. Perhaps it was right to think that Britain could remain a successful economy through its seemingly unique combination of its inventiveness and a comparatively poorly paid workforce; perhaps, but only perhaps.
One thing is absolutely certain: none of this holds true today. Value is now added by brains, not brawn; by inspiration, not perspiration; by bytes of memory, not bits of metal. Between 1969 and 1998 the market capitalisation of the top 10 companies in this country, leaving aside the impact of inflation, rose by no less than a factor of 50. During that same period, the number of people working for the 10 top employers shrank by 20 per cent. With the exception of the Post Office, which still ranks as a major employer, they were anything but the same companies. In fact no corporation, other than the Post Office, remains in that elite list 30 years on. It is the value added by skills, not numbers of employees, that makes a company competitive; and the skills that are essential to compete in the globalised market of the 21st century are not unique to any particular region or even to any particular country. That is the scale of change that faces all of us in this new century—and I mean all of us. Today's announcement of yet another mega-merger makes it clear that "middle management" is just as vulnerable as the traditional blue collar worker to imposed career change involving significant re-skilling and a great deal of adaptability.
That is why the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on higher education was absolutely right when it concluded that,
"it would be in the long-term interests of the UK to establish a national framework",
for qualifications and standards; for the possibility of a continual upgrading of skills.
Much of what I have said is utterly self-evident to anyone with an interest in training, or for that matter an interest in the long-term prospects for our economy. But the delivery of the thoroughly coherent

899
Dearing recommendations has been slow, patchy—as the Minister politely put it—and has been somewhat underresourced. It is for that reason that I felt it worth restating the issues that make this Bill important. The Committee stage of the Bill will give us the opportunity to look in more detail at its proposals and at whether they can be in tiny way improved. For example, I believe it was absolutely right to have sought to develop NVQs as the "gold standard" for vocational qualifications. The principle of competency as a basis for making awards must be correct. But we must also ensure that qualifications remain "fit for purpose". Surely it is a focus on quality control not "badging" which is the key to rigorous criterion-based assessment. This is just one of the issues that I should like to pursue in more detail in Committee.
I commend the broad thrust of this legislation to your Lordships. Only by bringing together the widest possible mix of skills and experience and ensuring adequate levels of guaranteed funding from both the state and private sectors can we possibly expect to meet the quite enormous challenges ahead of us. This Bill is an important step towards helping us achieve that goal.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Lord Puttnam, who in his previous career gave me and many millions of other people great enjoyment and happiness. I am very glad that he is now spending so much of his time trying to improve the educational system of our country. We should be grateful to him for that.
I am delighted to be debating further education because further education is one of the great success stories of our country. I do not recognise the gloomy picture of further education painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. The number of students going into further education increases each year. The wide variety of courses increases each year. There is no area of education in which the private sector is more involved than further education. It is an enormous success story of which this Government and previous governments can be very proud indeed.
When the Conservative government took over way back in 1979—this is now almost ancient history—the participation rate of 16 year-olds was about 30 per cent. When we left office, the rate was approaching 70 per cent. That reflected the enormous opportunity that opened. No area of education is as socially inclusive as further education. It gives to young men and women the opportunity, which they never thought they could possibly have, of tertiary education, qualifications and enhanced job prospects. We should be very proud of that. Further education used to be referred to as the "Cinderella" part of education—Cinderella showered with money, I may say, but it was never fully appreciated. In my time I certainly did what I could to improve that.
I shall make two general comments on the Bill before speaking about special education, which is the real purpose of my intervention today. There is a great
900
deal of bureaucracy in the Bill. I beg the Minister to look again at the levels of bureaucracy. All bureaucracy stifles; all bureaucracy smothers. The enormous tiers of quangos and interrelated bodies make "spaghetti junction" look like an open road. I hope that the Minister will look at that again. Further education will not expand through bureaucracy; it will be learner-led. It will be those students, sitting probably in front of a screen and probably linked into the Internet, who with a bit of luck can flummox the bureaucrats. They will decide what kind of things they want to learn and they will go shopping around this country, and more extensively around the world, to acquire those skills. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look again at the bureaucracy.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to think carefully about the provisions of the Bill on the question of the fate of sixth forms. The Bill looks at sixth forms from the point of view of further education rather than from the point of view of the schools. Sixth forms have a special role in schools—those which still have them—in that they allow schools to employ teachers to educate the sixth formers who are then available to the rest of the school. Sixth forms provide a continuity and a purpose in schools' education.
Undoubtedly there are in this Bill threats to sixth forms because the learning and skills council and not local education authorities will provide the money for sixth forms. All history teaches us that those who provide the money ultimately determine the policy. In our country the politics of the 17th century established that fact. It is inevitable that, if this new body is to provide the funding, eventually it will determine the shape and nature of sixth forms in all schools in the country. That is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the schools have a sufficient voice in determining the future of sixth forms. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, amendments will be tabled to ensure that local authorities are not just consulted as to whether sixth forms should be closed but will have a say in the decision-making process.
Why should parents not be consulted? After all, when one comes to the abolition of grammar schools the Government want to hear the voice of parents. Here is a difficult dilemma for the Minister. She invoked the power of the parental voice in relation to the future of grammar schools, and I hope that she will do likewise when it comes to the future of sixth forms. I look forward to her eloquence which in that respect may be limited.
I turn to the aspects of the Bill which deal with special education. I speak as President of the Royal London Society for the Blind which maintains a school in Kent of international renown for blind and visually impaired children. That takes toddlers of two and a half to children at GCSE level, and there is also a further education college for 16 to 19 year-olds. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that later this year the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to deal specifically with special education. Some of my comments will be reserved for that Bill and no doubt

901
will be repeated. As this Bill refers in several clauses specifically to special education, clearly this council will have funding responsibility for it.
I should like to bring a few matters to the attention of the Minister. I may not be here to listen to the Minister's remarks in winding up the debate. I have an engagement on the other side of London. Whether I can hear the Minister accept the points that I make depends on the brevity of the speakers who follow me. Generally, those schools that provide special education welcome the Bill, which places responsibility on the new council for the education and training of persons with educational difficulties. Clause 13(2) provides for placement in residential accommodation and therefore preserves a role for specialist residential colleges, of which Dorton House is one. In future will such colleges enjoy a level playing field with the maintained sector and have the same entitlements to grants and funding? At present the independent colleges are funded on an entirely different basis which is wholly dependent on the number of places taken up, with no provision for core costs to be met.
In addition, specialist colleges are denied access to funding for vital developments. To give an example, one very good initiative—it must have been started by the previous government because it is so good—is the National Learning Network for Further Education. I may even have started it myself but I am unable to remember. Unfortunately, specialist colleges like Dorton House have difficulty in accessing it. I do not believe that that was the intention. I appreciate that some of these questions are detailed and I do not necessarily expect the Minister to answer this question tonight. The maintenance of colleges such as Dorton House in Kent depends on the willingness of the local education authority. Kent is an enlightened authority and helps this school, particularly by way of GEST funding for the training of teachers. We have received some help under that scheme.
There has been an increase of £50 million in the funding of the successor scheme. The DfEE has proclaimed the importance of that funding in driving forward the action plan for the training of teachers of children with special educational needs. It is very difficult for schools in the non-maintained sector to apply for that money and I ask the Minister to look into that. I do not necessarily expect an answer to these questions tonight. However, when discussing the agency which is to fund specialist education it is important to get one's demands in early and to be at the head of the queue.
The last point that I raise, which is more a matter for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, concerns the New Opportunities Fund. A 50 per cent grant towards the cost of computers up to £500 is available to teachers, but that is contingent upon them following the ICT training provided under the New Opportunities Fund. Teachers in those schools of which Dorton House is an example do not qualify under that scheme.
902
I hope that the Minister will be able to consider the matters that I have raised. The area of special education particularly for post-16 year-olds is very difficult. It can be argued that for many the period from 16 to 19 is not appropriate and that at age 19 many students who are severely physically disabled or suffer from multiple handicaps need to go on in the further education process. I should like the Minister to consider that particularly in the context of the Bill that she is to bring forward.
However, in general I welcome the fact that this Bill brings together education and training. The noble Baroness said that the previous government brought the two departments together. In my view it did not happen early enough but I was unable to persuade my colleagues to do it. A strong lobby tried to keep the Department of Employment separate, particularly because at that time it was the department that dealt with the trade union movement. That has largely disappeared, by which I mean the engagement rather than the trade union movement. I am glad that the whole area of TECs and further education is to be brought together. My final plea to the Minister is: please try to simplify the matter as the Bill proceeds. At the moment the system is far too complicated bureaucratically.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, the publication of the Learning and Skills Bill marks the culmination of the Government's policy consultations over the past two years in the area of post-16 education and training in England and Wales. In speaking briefly to it I declare an interest as Chief Executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I stress that the Bill before us expressly excludes consideration of universities and higher education, and I shall say a brief word about that in a moment.
The Bill focuses on raising standards and participation beyond 16 and modernising arrangements for the planning, funding, delivery and quality assurance of post-16 education and training. It particularly impacts on further education, local government, training agencies and specifically employers in the regions. I welcome the fact that the Government have focused on each part of our education system from pre-school right up to higher education and invited discussion in each area. The consultation has been real and considerable. This Bill was preceded by the Green Paper The Learning Age which followed the thoughtful and ground-breaking report by my noble friend Lady Kennedy in 1997 and the White Paper Learning to Succeed. The Government are to be congratulated on the commitment to the post-16 sector, especially their attention to further education.
Despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, further education has for too long been a neglected sector, with consequences for many young people whose talents are in danger of being lost to us. Through the National Skills Task Force attention has also been focused on the low skill base of a substantial minority of the adult workforce who missed out on the

903
massive expansion of higher learning opportunities in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty per cent of adults lack the basic skills to perform even the lowest skilled jobs. They have been let down by the fragmentation which characterises the current provision built up on an ad hoc basis over recent years. That is why this Bill is so important. The partnership among employers, further education institutions and individuals which the Government's framework envisages is essential if lifelong learning is to become a reality for the very people who are least likely to be aware of the opportunities that are open to them.
A number of bodies are now charged to take action on the 16 to 19 year-old front and improve the wider skills area. That is excellent because it means that in innovative and different ways we shall reach out to connect with the largest number of potential learners, but it also means greater efforts of co-ordination between all these bodies to deliver the coherent strategy. So I was enormously pleased at the Minister's emphasis on co-ordination and the aim to reduce bureaucracy.
The learning and skills council will work with the University for Industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. also emphasised and with the Campaign for Learning and the national training organisations to gain national synergy from the different functions of these different bodies. At a local level the learning and skills council will connect with regional development authorities in order to map out and then respond to the skills needs of each part of the country which are bound to be different.
That leads me to the specifics of the Bill and the points I want to make about the commitment of the universities in this area. The CVCP has emphasised the need to rationalise post-16 education in England and Wales during previous consultations. We said then that some streamlining of existing provision, a structure more conducive to partnerships and resource-sharing, was vital to ensure that national skills targets and learning challenges are met in the medium term. In particular I welcome the creation of a post-16 structure that encourages specific local needs to be accommodated within a national framework lead by the central national learning and skills council.
However, in taking on the functions of the Further Education Funding Council, the national learning and skills council also assumes responsibility for the small but significant amount of funding which is channelled to 53 universities which deliver education. In addition the White Paper identifies the responsibilities of the LSC to work closely with the HEFC in respect of national and local targets for attainment at degree level. Universities have absolutely no quarrel with that. As I have said, it is sensible streamlining for the LSC to fulfil this remit. But these two functions point up the overlap between higher education, further education and the training agencies. We must ensure that the links between the areas with which the Bill is concerned—further education in particular and universities—remain close.
904
So while the primary concern of the council does not relate directly to higher education, I very much endorse the view of the White Paper that the attainment of the shared vision in the learning age will require new arrangements and improved partnerships including higher education. I add that it is important that universities should be represented on the national learning and skills council and on local councils, too. Many universities, not only those delivering further education, are very actively engaged in lifelong learning partnerships introduced last year by the DfEE. There is no reason why the changes envisaged by this Bill should depart from this principle.
More importantly, the White Paper was unequivocal in placing the learner at the heart of the new post-16 system. Many learners will be taking further education in universities, receiving training for work or upgrading their skills on courses that will involve to some degree their local universities. For these students it is important that the provisions of the Bill allow direct dialogue on the councils between all parties. Despite not being directly affected by the planned reorganisation, higher education is a player in the delivery of post-16 education and a key partner. I hope that the Bill will recognise that and so reflect the reality of the many local relationships that exist.
I would like to make one final and very specific point. During the establishment of the new support services for young people set out in Part V of the Bill, LSCs must appreciate the need for co-ordination between universities and "connections" careers companies which universities will strive to ensure. There is some evidence that some career companies are prioritising their work with under-achievers and as a result they are severely reducing the level of support provided to students progressing to higher education. Yet many prospective higher education students need advice about the range of qualifications they can attain at university and about the relative suitability of their-local institutions as well as opportunities further afield. As I said, that is a very specific point and one which I hope the Minister will be prepared to address.
Finally, the Bill signals the huge amount of investment, both of time and resources, going into this area. That is very much to be welcomed. It certainly shows this Government's commitment to tackle the skills gap and to encourage all talents to bloom.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, no doubt the Government mean well in stating the intentions of this Bill, with which many people might agree. Certainly now, and into the new millennium, skills and lifelong learning will be necessary for everybody if they are to cope with the applications of new science and technology as the years go by. Let us make no mistake, the pace of change will continue to accelerate. There is no standing still if we are to maintain our standard of living, quality of life and care of the environment.
Wealth creation is of vital importance to underpin everybody's personal standard of living and, through taxes, to pay for good public services such as

905
education, health, transport, etc. The applications of new technology also underpin the development of better, more efficient and effective services in those areas, whether it be schools, hospitals or railways. It is the ingenuity of our people controlling those applications which will determine whether they serve humanity with sensitivity and in better ways in the future.
In theory, this Bill hopes to provide for that. As in other fields, as an engineer I find this Government long on theory, but short on practice. This Bill pulls many longstanding schemes up by the roots in order to set up a new structure following the Government's underlying motto of modernise first, centralise, second and think, a poor third.
Today's complex society means that every fundamental change, such as that proposed in this Bill, sends ripples out over a wide area and has unexpected and unfortunate repercussions which it seems to me have not been thought out carefully or sufficiently. It sounds good to a spin doctor to put everything under one council, but in the case of the learning and skills council it is not elected: it is a quango whose chairman and members are all appointed by the Secretary of State. As an after-thought Clause 1 suggests,
"the desirability of appointing a person who has experience relevant to the Council's functions".
There is no mandatory statement, just "desirability". Yet this council takes over the Further Education Funding Council, with eight years' experience; the Training and Enterprise Council, with 12 years' experience; and the many years of local authority experience in schools, adult education and the youth service.
Nothing is said about the vital role of business in specifying the skills needed for their efficient commercial operation. Surely, it should be laid down in the Bill that the chairman and a substantial proportion of the members of the council should have business experience and preferably have been effective people in TECs and the FEFC.
I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness this afternoon that that is to be the case, but why is it not in the Bill? The same looseness is evident at local level where 47 new local councils— new quangos—are to be appointed by the central quango. There is no emphasis on previous experience in this field of skills, learning provision or business. Clause 19(4) states,
"Members of a local council may be (but need not be) members of these Councils".
Again, why no mandatory statements about previous experience?
Local skills shortages differ across the country. The noble Baroness called them "patchy". They are bound to be different. Local business people will know practically where they lie. Some of the skills can be best supplied through work-based learning as well as through education and training in the education system. There is not much mention of that.
906
One of the possible faults in past further education is that it has been supply-side rather than demand-led, and the provision must be up to date, not months later. Business people's co-operation locally will be vital if quick, suitable action to provide shortage skills locally is to be achieved. The kind of inexperienced bureaucracy provided by the Bill is not the right recipe. Local business must be closely involved, and yet that is not laid down. Why is it not made mandatory? There is no mention of training organisations despite the fact that, as the Engineering and Marine Training Authority states, the Government make it clear in their strategic guidance that the national training organisations are
"at the heart of the learning and skills agenda".
There is no mention of City and Guilds or the RSA, despite their involvement in the provision of skills and life-long learning over decades, indeed centuries. Why are they not mentioned in the Bill?
In removing the Further Education Funding Council and the TECs, there will be substantial unnecessary expenditure on redundancy and valuable experience will be lost. How will the knowledgeable and experienced people be involved in the new system? If the good people are not offered continued employment, both nationally and locally, valuable experience and personal relationships will literally be thrown away. Good personal relationships are the key to efficient collaboration and use of precious resources.
This scheme, with its centralist emphasis, is a long way from the practical provision, and seems to be much too top-down and bureaucratic, as other noble Lords have remarked.
In paragraph 200 of the Explanatory Notes it is stated that money will be saved,
"although in the short term this saving will be abated by costs arising from winding-up existing arrangements and establishing new bodies".
The Government admit that no attempt has been made to provide an accurate assessment of these transitional costs, which in my view are likely to impose overall costs rather than savings.
There is a reference to full-time and part-time provision. Does that mean that students will now have grants for part-time education, which is so vital to women returners?
There is reference to both vocational and leisure-based adult education. I can say from long experience that it is impossible to separate the two. Immediately, flower arranging or conversational foreign languages are mentioned. These may start as providing leisure interests, but often develop into vocational courses, as foreign languages are used at work, and flower arrangers decide to open flower shops or provide flower arrangements commercially for weddings, private receptions, et cetera. This is a minefield—not one to put into the hands of inexperienced people.
The Essex TEC has done an excellent job. Every year it makes Essex Skills Financial Awards to voluntary groups which are helping disadvantaged people: the deaf, the blind, the mentally handicapped,

907
lone parents, Asian women returners, ex-offenders, the unemployed—the socially excluded people that the Government claim to help. Alan Howarth, Minister of State, came to Chelmsford in 1998 to make the awards and paid tribute to their work. The Essex TEC wishes to continue. If it does not, all that valuable, practical and collaborative experience will be lost. Why does it need to be so thoughtlessly and violently disturbed?
Sixth forms in schools are now to be financed through two new tiers of bureaucracy. The schools will have to separate costs of the 11 to 16 and 16 to 18 education. One of the good things about 11 to 18 schools is that gifted teachers teach children of all ages and encourage them to succeed and progress into sixth forms.
Now, money and time will have to be spent on more form-filling, just when teachers are asking for relief from this boring exercise. The National Association of Head Teachers calls it, rightly, "intervention overkill". Will that help children to learn new skills? The NAHT fears that it will lead to loss of valuable sixth forms and parental choice of school. Its fears are understandable. Why take adult education and the youth service away from the local education authorities?
Essex has a wonderful youth orchestra in which the LEA has invested deeply over many years. The young people met us years ago and said that they wanted to visit America and asked whether, if they raised half the money, the LEA would provide matching funding. Of course, we did. Every year they visit different countries, gaining confidence and providing much enjoyment. Similarly, other groups enjoy the facilities of the Essex Sailing Centre. Only in this week's local paper there is a picture of young people receiving their Duke of Edinburgh's Gold Award locally, before going to the Palace. How will all this good work be enhanced by far-away and inexperienced bureaucrats?
There is reference to work experience and education business links for school children. We did that in Essex in the 1970s and also linked courses with further education, which is valuable for the children; but it is happening all over the country now.
This disturbing Bill was not necessary. No human institution is perfect. As NEDO stated some time ago, if a structure is 70 per cent right, improve it, do not destroy it. Dissemination of good practice by the Secretary of State through education and employment circulars and other improvements could have improved and spread the necessary practices much more effectively without all this bureaucracy.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her very full introduction to the Bill, which is the most important restructuring of post-16 education since the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I welcome the Bill because it has the potential to improve greatly the opportunities for students with disabilities and learning difficulties. It is also warmly welcomed by the Post-16 Disability Consortium, which is a forum of the main disability organisations concerned with education, including
908
Mencap, the RNIB, which the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, has already spoken for, Scope and SKILL, which is the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities. I should declare an interest in relation to the latter because I have the honour to be President of SKILL.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill brings further education, adult and community education and training together, which should mean more cohesion in post-school learning. I also welcome the abolition of Schedule 2, which I hope will open up provision for those students with learning disabilities who are unable to progress to an accredited vocational course. This is something particularly close to my heart because Schedule 2 provision was brought in by the Government as an amendment to the 1992 Act, in response to quite a lot of cajoling and not a little pressure. I see the noble Baroness, Lady David, smile because she remembers exactly how much we had to put into it. However, it never quite lived up to expectations because of the proviso about having to progress to an accredited vocational course.
I applaud the statement in Clause 3 that the council must take account of the different abilities and aptitude of different persons and the attempt to address people's holistic learning needs and the recognition of the importance of non-vocational leisure-time occupation.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I feel that there are several improvements that could be made, some of which are very important if the Bill is to be really successful in meeting the needs of students with disabilities and learning difficulties.
I intended to raise four main points, but the first concerned the Disability Discrimination Act and the learning and skills council. I very much welcome what the Minister said about having a self-standing disability and education Bill. A quick telephone call to SKILL revealed that it also has no problem with the Bill. Obviously, we need to see what is in it, and we need to do that soon so that it dovetails with the current legislation. The Minister said that that would occur later in this Session. Can she confirm that that means before November 2000? I hope very much that the "later" will be a sooner later rather than a later later.
First, in the Bill there is the chance to create a stronger entitlement to equality of educational opportunity than is implied by the words of Clause 13(1) to,
"have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties".
That is welcome as far as it goes, but the provision is the same as the 1992 Act. I would hope that we can go a little further now. The consortium suggests that the new learning and skills council and the new youth support service should have a duty to promote equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people in education and training and all support services covering transition. The Minister has many points to answer, but I should welcome her view on that issue.

909
Secondly, in Clause 13(2) the Bill places a duty on the learning and skills council to secure residential education for disabled students who cannot be provided for in daytime provision up to the age of 25. That is the same duty as in the 1992 Act but it applies still only to residential establishments. That means that a disabled student aged over 19 who wishes to go to a local non-residential college could be refused funding for post-school studies even though his need for them was just as great as a student who might go to a residential college. I feel strongly that that anomaly should be dealt with, in particular with the most welcome increase in inclusive learning. I very much hope that the Government may agree to bring in an amendment to give the new council a duty to secure education and/or training for all disabled young people up to the age of 25 who may need it, irrespective of whether they are in a residential establishment. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when she replies.
Thirdly, the Bill makes no mention of the transport needs of disabled students and trainees. Transport for disabled students has always been a substantial barrier to their ability to receive further study and there are still many instances of disabled students being unable to take up a place at college because their local authority will not provide them with necessary transport. That is especially true for students who have reached the age of 19. Under 19 most of them get transport eventually, although it can be a terrible hassle to secure it. However, post-19 it is a real problem and depends on the LEA. We need to sort out that matter. During the passage of the 1992 Act, we tried to ensure that transport was provided. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, will remember again, we had another go under the DDA. Unless there is a clear duty to provide transport, ensuring that disabled learners can get to their courses, all the rights mentioned in the Bill and aspirations to inclusive learning will become meaningless to a student denied that transport. I hope that the Minister will agree that that problem needs to be sorted out so that we can ensure that students with disabilities and learning difficulties will have every opportunity to benefit fully from the measures in the Bill.
The Bill is greatly welcome. Much progress has been made since the 1992 Act. I hope that during the Bill's passage we can agree some amendments which will ensure that students with disabilities and learning difficulties benefit from all that it offers.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I intend this afternoon to make three fairly brief points about the proposals in the Bill for the creation of learning and skills councils. The first of these concerns the relationship between the councils and the local authorities in their areas; the second concerns the relationship between the new regional development agencies and these new councils; and, finally, I want to comment specifically on the arrangements for London.
910
First, I should like to say a few words about why it is so important to get these matters right. My perspective is unashamedly a London one; that is my background and my experience. And an effective skills agenda is crucial for London and its future prosperity and competitive success. Skills gaps are already hampering that competitiveness. According to the London Skills Forecasting Unit, more than one in three of the jobs on offer are regarded as "difficult to fill" and that is frequently because people in London lack the right skills. This is a problem that both individuals and employers need to address. One in three people admit that they lack a relevant skill for the job they do but also say that they have no plans to do anything about it. But at the same time half of London's employers failed last year to offer any staff training to their 3.4 million employees. It is not surprising that employers rate 280,000 of their employees as lacking the skills they need for their current job.
There is already the danger that we shall end up with an IT "underclass". Gaps in skills divide the workforce. Of those unemployed, 43 per cent lack computer skills, compared with only 22 per cent of those who are in work. And for those who see this as a vanishing problem as technologically literate young people come into the workforce, it is disturbing to learn that in London one in five young people (aged 16 to 24) claim not to have a knowledge of computers.
In Learning to Succeed there was a vision: that a competitive, prosperous and inclusive society would be created through skills and learning. The statistics I have quoted demonstrate why that vision is so important to Londoners. Yet that vision can be achieved only if the skills that people are given are matched to the skills that businesses require. LSCs must therefore be responsive to the needs of employers and the labour market and not just to individual aspirations.
But the pace of change these days in the labour market is extremely rapid and LSCs will succeed in what they need to do only if there is a requirement to monitor and provide for emerging skill needs. I am not clear whether this is adequately provided for in the Bill.
That need to be alive to the wider agenda brings me neatly to my first point about the relationship between LSCs and the local authorities in their areas. Before your Lordships' House at present is the Local Government Bill. This will provide local authorities with a new power to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. At the same time the Bill encourages local authorities to develop community plans and to exercise community leadership in their areas.
Ensuring that young people (and indeed the whole population) have the necessary skills for the developing world of work must be an integral part of the promotion of economic well-being and of any community plan. There must therefore be strong and clear links between the work of LSCs and the community leadership agenda of the local authorities.

911
I am pleased to see that local authorities are to be embedded in the planning and consultation arrangements of the new LSCs. However, the Bill requires consultation with LEAs rather than local authorities and fails to recognise the broader community leadership role of local authorities as a whole.
The Bill should also recognise the central leadership role of local authorities in local economic development and LSCs should be required to work with local authorities on this. That means that the arrangements which specify relationships with local education authorities are inadequate.
The significance of economic development brings me to my second point. The new regional development agencies are required to develop an economic development strategy for their regions. Central to any such strategy must be the learning and skills agenda being followed by the LSCs. It is difficult to see how the RDAs can do their job unless they are able to develop their strategies in conjunction with the LSCs and in the knowledge that the LSCs will act in accordance with the agreed regional strategy. I have to admit to being unclear about how this relationship will be managed and indeed why the LSCs are accountable to a national council rather than to the relevant RDAs. I trust that joined-up government will be allowed to extend to these relationships and that this will not be the subject of squabbles and tensions between Whitehall departments. I am sure that that cannot be the case and that a workable relationship will be found to ensure that the regional development agencies and learning and skills councils work together effectively.
Finally, I turn to the arrangements for London. In practice, London is one labour market, albeit a big one. I believe that that would have been best recognised by having one learning and skills council for the whole of London. Unfortunately, that viewpoint did not prevail among my colleagues on the London Development Partnership. However, the LDP recommended very strongly that there should be a strong co-ordinating body for the five learning and skills councils proposed for the capital. I would have hoped that London's unique nature could have been recognised in the Bill.
Some may feel that that amounts to special pleading for London. However, I remind your Lordships that the UK's prosperity depends on London. London's unemployment is 20 per cent above the national average. There are as many unemployed people in London as in Scotland and Wales combined. At any one time there are 120,000 jobs on offer but people lack the right skills to fill them. One in four of London's residents have no or only minimal qualifications. Therefore it is clear why we need to get the skills agenda right and why the provisions in the Bill are so important. In this House it is our duty to ensure that we have the best arrangements for London—ones that are most workable and likely to be effective—and for the people of London.
5.9 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I shall not delay the House for long. I shall merely make a few observations about some areas of concern to me and the engineering and manufacturing industries with which I try to keep in close contact. For some 40 years I have had close links with industry and especially the engineering industry. My past employers have included the Ford Motor Company and Lansing Bagnall Ltd. Therefore, it is from an industrial and engineering perspective that I look at the Bill.
At first glance, the Bill makes some sensible points. For too long industry has suffered from the highly variable funding of modern apprenticeships. The engineering industry has for many years made the point that to train someone to NVQ level three in engineering, which is a key part of the modern apprenticeship framework, costs at least £28,000, compared with only £8,000 for business administration. The experience of the industry has been that some TECs were much more generous than others in funding modern apprenticeship programmes, and therein lies a problem.
It is therefore not surprising that industry welcomes the fact that the national learning and skills council will result in the introduction of national tariffs and funding systems. Will the Minister be in a position to reassure us that the new body and its local arms will ensure that appropriate differential rates of funding are introduced to reflect adequately the high costs of some sectors, such as engineering, compared with others?
I am concerned that the internal make-up of the new body should reflect the whole spectrum of post-16 education and training, so that the interests of both colleges and other training providers, such as group training schemes and in-house training schemes, are addressed. We must not end up with something similar to the current Further Education Funding Council but with a slightly expanded remit.
Any sensible person will want to see the learning and skills councils make a real difference. It would be wrong and damaging to the industry for us to end up with an organisation that took a one-sided view. Quite simply, I do not want us to end up lumbered with a body that has a bias towards traditional classroom learning against vocational, work-based learning. That is the current criticism of the FEFC and I hope that Ministers will take great care in ensuring that the LSCs do not follow the same pattern.
However, I can see problems in trying to ensure such an outcome. Clause 83 of the Bill makes it clear that the assets, rights and liabilities of the FEFC will transfer to the LSC upon dissolution of that body. No similar mention is made of the TECs, which is quite understandable given that they are companies limited by guarantee. But will the Minister give us an assurance that that will not mean that FEFC staff will receive preference over those employed by individual TECs when the LSCs—both national and local—are recruiting staff? I fear that the TUPE arrangements—I apologise for all those acronyms; they are the

913
Government's creation, not mine—will result in exactly such a scenario occurring, which will have serious consequences against ensuring that industry has total confidence in the organisation.
Finally, I should like to touch upon what appears to be a serious omission in the Bill. The Minister will know that national training organisations are a creation of her department and indeed, are a recent development. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has high expectations of those NTOs and I do not blame him. Indeed, in his foreword to the latest strategic guidance for NTOs, the Secretary of State writes that NTOs,
"are at the heart of the learning and skills agenda",
and that they,
"play a pivotal role in helping to modernise the education and training systems needed to deliver the skills for greater competitiveness and employability".
He goes on to add that,
"the employer's voice must be heard to ensure these developments meet the need of business and the public services".
Those are fine words and the NTOs must be delighted that the Secretary of State thinks so highly of them. but why has he not mentioned them in the Bill? I have searched and searched, as have others, and nowhere are they mentioned. They are not even listed in the glossary to the Explanatory Notes. In addition, why are the county careers services not being guided in that direction for suitable young people? It should be part of their job.
It makes me wonder whether the Secretary of State has created so many bodies that he actually forgets about some of them. NTOs have a vital role in representing the views of industry and I urge the Minister to ask her officials to look again at the Bill to see how NTOs may be included so that they can achieve the remit given to them by the Secretary of State and ensure that the LSCs are left in no doubt that the NTO movement is,
"at the heart of the learning and skills agenda".
5.17 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her exposition of the Bill and also for her mention of the Special Educational Needs Bill to come. I was extremely glad to hear of it and I hope that we shall have it sooner rather than later. I hope also that it may start in this House. I do not know whether she can give us any information on that point and I do not suppose that she will.
There is a great deal of support for this Bill, which will lend much more coherence to what is a far from coherent system at present. Many organisations have expressed their support, as well as a great many noble Lords today. Alan Tuckett, the director of NIACE—the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education—says that,
"The Bill provides a workable framework for improving opportunities for adult learners across the board… given goodwill and imagination, the new Council should provide a platform for the creation of a learning society".
914
The institute has been anxious about the funding but has found some reassurance in the funding document which came out recently. After many years of insecure funding, a foundation for the provision of all-age education and careers information advice and guidance looked to have been secured last year when the Minister spoke at the AGM of the guidance council. I hope that she will confirm that that is so.
NIACE picks out in its briefing 10 reasons to be cheerful, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said. I shall mention one, because I am particularly pleased about it—it was mentioned also by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. That is the ending of the curriculum distinction between Schedule 2 and non-Schedule 2 provision. I remember trying hard, during the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill 1992, to prevent the distinction from being included in the Bill, but I was not successful.
In particular, we want to encourage the learning process and we do not want to discourage those people who have made a start—those who previously may not have attended classes, and so on, but who have made some progress and do not want to change their institution to take a qualification. I was most cheered to read at paragraph 5.27 of the prospectus:
"While qualifications are very important … we also want to see the LSC provide opportunities with scope for learners to get recognition for their achievements other than through qualifications".
I was anxious that local government might feel aggrieved that some of its responsibilities would be taken from it. However, the LGA seems to be content. In fact, it says that there is much to welcome in the Bill which brings forward many welcome changes to the public provision of post-16 education. It regrets that the Government have chosen to achieve that improvement through nationalising provision, rather than using local government to lead the co-ordination of the disparate system that exists at present. However, because of the variety in the performance of local authorities, one can understand why the Government chose the national commission route. The LGA praises the words ill the first consultation paper on post-16 funding and allocations:
"There should be common funding rates so that the same type of learner with the same type of needs on the same type and length of programme is funded to the same extent. no matter which school or college he or she is registered with".
I agree with that.
The LGA feared that the voice of the local community could become drowned out by the sub-regional local learning and skills councils and the national power of its umbrella body. However, at least the Bill provides a welcome role for the local authority to have a plan for the development of adult and community learning which can be used by the local learning and skills council.
I was going to make a point about the Local Government Bill. However, the point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and, therefore, I need not do so. But I hope that there will be a cross-reference between that and this Bill and that we can table an amendment to bring that about.

915
The LGA regrets that the funding of sixth forms is to be taken from it. However, it is pleased that it will be able to set up and maintain schools for 16 to 19 year-olds, and looks on that as an exciting opportunity to improve the rationalisation of sixth-form education in its areas. It does not seem to object to the closing of small sixth forms. Here I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I do not believe that small sixth forms are sensible, either for pupils or economically. They cannot take the necessary range of subjects. Therefore, if the noble Lord aims to change that, I believe that we can perhaps look forward to some battles at Committee stage.
Therefore, on the whole I believe that local government is satisfied with what has been included in the Bill. It is not surprising that it does not like absolutely everything, but, as I pointed out, I believe that there is much satisfaction. I believe that some of the Minister's words in her opening speech should also give reassurance.
For the rest of my remarks, I want to concentrate on the youth support service. I am sure that noble Lords will know what I mean, although the words "youth support service" do not appear in the Bill, nor in the Explanatory Notes, and nor did the Minister use them in her opening speech. Perhaps she can tell us what it is to be called when that is finally decided.
Social exclusion is the basis and the reason for the plans proposed in the Bill. Of course, I am delighted that the Government are making such an effort to include all young people in the learning process and in the acquisition of skills. My anxiety is that, in the determination to prevent social exclusion, the needs of the remainder of young people may fail to receive the attention which they should and which they deserve. The Bill is heavy on processes but says little on functions and purposes. Would it be a good idea to have a purpose clause at the beginning of that part of the Bill?
Social inclusion. partnerships and personal advisers are all stressed, and rightly so. A great deal of attention should go to people at risk, but is there a danger that the mainstream work may be marginalised so that some young people will not have access to professional advice? That is extremely important when deciding on subjects, courses, future further and higher education and jobs. I want to emphasise that that help is as necessary for bright and clever young people as it is for the less able. They may not have the maturity to make the right decisions for themselves.
It would be helpful to know whether the current careers service will be the lead body—the local contracting body between departments—and whether the resources available will be adequate to ensure that the new service will extend to all young people, rather than there being a reduction in the amount overall. I am sure that the careers service will be willing to take on the new work, but not at the expense of reducing the old. It is interesting to look at Scotland. There, the careers service is kept, but within the youth support service. Obviously, there must be partnership and close links between all involved. However, a lead
916
service seems important. Perhaps all that will become clear when we receive the next prospectus. I hope that the Minister can tell us when that will be. Certainly, we need it well before the Committee stage.
I turn to careers teachers and ask for clarification. Do the Government plan any measures to improve careers education provision? We know from Ofsted that that varies across the country and is very patchy. There is the issue of age: 13 to 19 is the age range in the Bill, but support in schools goes to those below 13. Very interesting work is taking place in primary schools with the careers service in support. Can we be sure that age specification in the Bill will not prevent that work from continuing? I quote from a conference paper, Career-Related Learning in Primary Schools:
"Communities and society benefit from children being aware of the responsibilities and opportunities of adult working life… Career-related learning can promote equality of opportunity by opening up to children a broader range of opportunities. and can help the school to monitor and raise pupil aspirations The potential for career-related learning to motivate children and make their learning more relevant to them is an important contribution to tackling social exclusion. Early intervention to target children at risk of becoming disaffected can forestall the more intractable problems which could arise later".
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give some assurance on that.
The careers service is carrying out an increasing amount of work with adults. In a paper last week the Skills Task Force underlined the importance of that work and expressed concern that the careers service is in danger of being subsumed within the YSS. That could mean that the work is being marginalised. While I welcome the new YSS because it brings together all the services to help young people through a challenging period of their lives,
"it is likely to reduce the focus of local careers services on meeting the needs of adults".
Can the Minister also give us an assurance that that will not be the case?
I make a final point on adult guidance—an important technical point in relation to the Bill. Clause 5(1)(i) provides for the LSC to secure "information or advice" to post-16 year-olds. It does not mention guidance. I hope that the Minister will accept an amendment to add "guidance" to the phrase and, similarly, to Clause 34 in the part of the Bill which relates to Wales. If that cannot be agreed, as I hope that it will, can the Minister assure us that the terminology in the Bill includes access to an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser, which is what "guidance" means in this context?
I believe that we shall have an interesting Committee stage to the Bill. There is much to be admired in it, but some things need to be improved. I hope that the Minister will support some of those amendments when they come before the House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I echo the hopes of other noble Lords that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the learning and skills council supports the maintenance of sixth forms in

917
schools. I am afraid that I usually disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I do so again at this point.
Over the past 30 years or more, there have been many efforts to argue that schools should end at 16 and that all 16–19 education should be provided in colleges. For example, in 1976, the influential Lord Alexander of Potterhill, the former Sir William Alexander, said that it would be economically impossible for comprehensives with 1,000 pupils to support a sixth form and that the answer was colleges. The Macfarlane report of the early 1980s was even more direct, saying that many factors pointed inescapably to the national adoption of a break at 16. Of course, there is a great temptation to adopt a college answer. It is cheaper than keeping a pupil in a sixth form, although it must be remembered that a sixth form in a school gives much more to the pupils.
I taught for 30 years in school sixth forms. I feel that it would be a disaster for English education if schools were stripped of their sixth forms. I wish to echo what my noble friend Lord Baker said. I know that my noble friend Lady Young fought a battle royal in the early 1980s to stop the Macfarlane report being implemented. The point made by my noble friend Lord Baker—and I echo it—is that many graduates enter teaching with the expectation that at least some of their timetables will allow them to teach pupils at an advanced level.
It is interesting that schools with sixth forms perform better at GCSE level. I believe that it is roughly an improvement of 15 per cent. I would even go so far as to say that it is doubtful whether the national curriculum could be sustained in some schools if talented graduates stayed away from the teaching profession because of the lack of available advanced teaching. That would be particularly true of subjects like physics and some modern languages.
Let us go further. If teachers inspire pupils at the highest level, it often affects the ethos of the whole school. I am sure that the lives of many noble Lords in this House today were transformed by inspiring and inspirational teaching in the sixth form. It is certainly true of me.
The school sixth form also sustains sports teams, takes a lead in plays and contributes a large part to distinguished orchestras which have characterised many schools. Sixth form pupils provide a role model for the younger pupils on the games field, in drama and in school societies. Many noble Lords have spoken in school societies and have seen the interaction between the older and younger pupils.
The existence of the sixth form offers an opportunity for post-16 religious and moral education—something for which the Government have argued frequently—and provides emotional and pastoral continuity.
Colleges are modelled on the university. Many of us know that the atmosphere of the sixth form is more conducive to security and stability between the ages of 16 and 19 rather than the neo-university atmosphere of
918
a college. The years 16 to 19, as many of us remember, are not the easiest for young people when they are exploring their emotions and deciding who they are as well as experiencing more advanced and sophisticated methods of learning.
It is true that some—a minority—have outgrown school and want a freer and less structured environment which a college can provide. But from my own experience over many years, I know many who collapsed within the neo-university style of the college which had been imposed on them too early.
I conclude by hoping that the Government, and particularly the Minister, will not allow the new council not to give value to the sixth form as English education would be the poorer if schools finished at 16. I should support any amendment giving local authorities and parents the right to decide whether a school sixth form should be ended. If my own Front Bench is not prepared to table such an amendment, I shall do so myself.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on the Learning and Skills Bill which carries forward government strategies for lifelong learning. Mencap's last annual conference focused on that very issue, examining strategies for inclusive learning for adults, young people and children with learning disabilities. Many of my comments will draw upon the debates held at that conference by families and professionals while others reflect wider, pan-disability issues, largely influenced by the post-16 coalition of disability organisations referred to already by my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth.
In her opening speech, the Minister threw those of us concerned with disability into some confusion. On the one hand she acknowledged that the Learning and Skills Bill makes a number of important provisions for disabled people, particularly in relation to the transition from school to other post-16 learning of young people with statements of special educational needs. On the other hand, the Minister stated that full and proper attention to the recommendations of the task force will be best achieved in a self-standing "disability in education" Bill. Therefore, I am not quite certain whether the rather lengthy remarks which I propose to make are germane to this Bill or to the proposed new Bill. Perhaps I shall have to repeat them later in this Session. I shall ignore the cries of "Shame". Frankly, I do not care, provided that the Disability Discrimination Act, this Learning and Skills Bill plus the proposed disability in education Bill achieve full equality of opportunity for lifelong learning for people with all disabilities and learning difficulties.
There is no doubt that the term "lifelong learning" falls victim to over-use. Nevertheless, I believe it to be helpful in understanding the ongoing support which many people with learning disabilities may need to achieve their full potential as confident and independent citizens, whether that is learning social skills; how to advocate for themselves; how to choose

919
a vacation and make a success of it; or even how to develop non-verbal expression to communicate with others.
Learners with disabilities may work at a different pace, require a different interpretation of texts and materials or may have other ways of responding to questions and expressing themselves. Others may have complex health needs which must be taken into account. Others still may find that their disability presents no specific barriers beyond that of discriminatory attitudes of others.
The principal duty placed upon the new national learning and skills council is to secure the provision of proper facilities for the education and training of 16 to 19 year-olds where "proper" is construed both in terms of quantity and quality. I welcome both of those emphases but most notably, the latter since it is in terms of quality that much of the provision for young people with learning disabilities has been sorely lacking.
The seminal piece of research into inclusive learning, the Tomlinson report, back in 1996, recognised with respect to people with learning disabilities that:
"The quality of learning opportunities is poorer than for other students".
While improvements have been made, there is still a long way to go. Therefore, I look forward to the council grasping the nettle of that problem.
The secondary duty of the council is to secure reasonable provision for the education and training of persons over the age of 19. Reasonable facilities for adults are reasonable if they are affordable, implying that the council can place less priority on adult learners. I caution against a clear demarcation of priority between young people and adult learners. Young people with a learning disability may not be in a position to move into further education until they are in their 20s, perhaps even 25. Those who leave school over the age of 19 should have the same rights to a proper, quality further education or training experience as any other school leavers. I would like that distinction removed, giving the council and its local subsidiaries the opportunity to provide lifelong learning as it sees fit.
I am most encouraged to see the council charged with securing non-vocational learning and leisure-based opportunities alongside the more traditional forms of full and part-time education and vocational training. People with mild learning disabilities, who might eventually go on and work, may require a period of non-vocational training after they leave school to develop their ability to make choices or to work as part of a team. Non-vocational courses may also be best suited to people with severe learning disabilities or multiple disabilities and will pay crucial dividends in terms of the development of communication skills, self-esteem and social inclusion.
In the past, non-vocational training has always been something of a Cinderella service and the first to scale down when budgets are tight. I look forward to the council improving that state of affairs. The council will
920
also be charged with the important task of fostering links between education, training and employment. That will benefit all learners, including those with learning disabilities. Through its Pathway employment service, Mencap is one of a number of organisations that already undertake that role, supporting people with learning disabilities who are hoping to obtain work. Clients are offered many different elements or pathways of support, including vocational training, IT or basic skills support, help into self-employment, work experience or trials, job search assistance or on-the-job coaching.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that where a college of further education has developed a partnership with such a supported employment service, the transition from college to employment has been much more cost effective and successful and has avoided the scenario whereby the student becomes unemployed on leaving college because the necessary planning and support provisions were not identified. We all know that long-term unemployment for such people generally leads to lifelong unemployment.
Clause 13 asks the council specifically to recognise the importance of securing appropriate provision for people with learning difficulties. I warmly welcome the inclusion of that direction. The learning and skills prospectus goes further in fleshing that out, asking the council to co-ordinate a national strategy to ensure that accessible learning opportunities are available and to promote equal opportunities for all learners. It is essential that the council is able to draw upon relevant expertise in devising that strategy and its implementation, both locally and nationally. I would expect the council's annual report to outline specifically how it has undertaken that direction.
The latter part of Clause 13 suggests that the council has an obligation to provide boarding accommodation for under-25s with learning disabilities for whom no local provision is suitable. That is welcome in principle but one of my key concerns is that implementing that obligation might compound an existing problem—that the young person seeking a specialist college place has to be turned down by a mainstream provider to be eligible for specialist provision.
We should continue to strive to place young people in mainstream provision where their needs can be adequately met. But for some young people, specialist provision can easily be determined early on as the best option. Those young people should not be penalised as a consequence. I urge the Minister, as did my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth, to broaden and strengthen the clause to ensure that the council has a duty to provide learner-focused education and training for all disabled people under the age of 25 regardless of whether those individuals' needs are best met and without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
The council will be expected to have an ambitious equal opportunities policy covering all aspects of its work. It will include eliminating barriers to learning through the provision of appropriate materials and support for people with learning disabilities. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether support is to be

921
provided with transport costs or travel training for people with learning disabilities. That may seem a small point but it is generally one reported to me as being the most problematic in securing access to appropriate education and training, as was also said by my noble friend. We have to recognise that individuals require different support provided in different ways, and we must be creative and flexible in our responses to individual need.
The equal opportunities strategy will also consider measures for tackling discrimination within further education and training. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the council will work closely with the Disability Rights Commission to advance the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force and the Education Select Committee that further education and training will be brought specifically within the remit of the DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1995. Perhaps the Minister will do as was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and give more information about the proposed disability in education Bill.
One would expect the council and its local subsidiaries to be accountable to the local community and its membership to reflect the views of all stakeholders in the lifelong learning project. Fighting my own corner, I like the membership of the councils to include at least one member with knowledge and experience of disability. I see no reason why applicants with learning disabilities could not, with appropriate support, fit the bill—as illustrated by the Department for Education and Employment's much-welcomed announcement today that a person with a learning disability is to serve for a minimum of three years on the Disability Rights Commission. There is a powerful self-advocacy movement that needs to be nurtured and valued.
The remaining aspects of the Bill are concerned with developing strategies to encourage school leavers to undertake education or training and measures to make learning or work more attractive to them. A recent project that considered transitional arrangements for young adults with disabilities in London found that those in education tended not to have concrete plans for the next step after their current course. Research also found that young people, including those with severe disabilities, overwhelmingly wanted to work but there was often no clear idea of how they would progress and little or no awareness of any benefits or services to support them in independent living.
The Bill will legislate for compulsory transition reviews for young people with disabilities in their final year of school or before they reach the age of 19, which is most welcome. However, there is already a requirement upon schools, local education authorities, social services and the careers service to join forces to devise a transition plan, which should be renewed annually. Unhappily, there are extremely poor rates of compliance—particularly for children in mainstream schools, whose staff are less accustomed to the procedure, or for young people who are placed outside their local borough. Only half the young people
922
surveyed in the London project in mainstream schools said that a review had taken place—and no other options had been discussed with them, apart from their current placement. There needs to be a concerted drive towards compliance with the code and with the new legislation. Reviews need to involve all agencies working together to offer youngsters real options.
One final measure worthy of comment is the plan to introduce individual learning accounts to enable learners to benefit from incentives to save for education or training. As with other independent financial arrangements such as direct payments in the social services field, measures must be put in place to ensure that people with learning disabilities can access appropriate support in running their own accounts, and that they are properly supported in making choices about what learning is right for them.
To conclude, we have before us a promising Bill and an encouraging prospectus for the new councils but that is not to say that this particular transition will be easy. It will take a real shift in priorities, backed up by strong resources, to really make lifelong learning viable for all. Only then will we be able to declare, as does Trofimov in Chekhov's Cherry Orchard,
"I expect I shall be a student to the end of my days".
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I welcome the Bill for the coherence and higher and more consistent standards that it will bring to further and adult education. I should declare an interest as chair of the governors of the Working Men's College, founded in 1854, one of the great periods of widening participation, to use the term from the seminal report of my noble friend Lady Kennedy.
Further education is an engine of change in our society. Reaching the parts that other education does not, it can repair the gaps left by inadequate schools, of which there have been plenty over the past decade. It enables people to retrain, "upskill", widen their horizons or, that rare privilege, to turn a consuming passion into a means of earning a living, and to transform skills acquired in another country into an asset to themselves and this country. Further education is an integrating force for individuals as well as society, not least in its economic aspect, as my learned friend the Minister and other noble Lords have indicated.
But in recent decades, as opposed to 1854, further and adult education did not have what one might call national respect or much state resources and attention. By improving funding mechanisms, this Government have already improved standards. The Bill is a huge step forward in providing a new framework. The integration of TECs into the learning and skills councils, the youth support service, the expansion of business links with further education and, most importantly, the power for local education authorities to co-ordinate and improve sixth-form provision where needed, will all empower the further education system to deliver national standards.

923
To have an effective engine of change we need to know how change is working. We need to have disaggregated information on a national basis to inform us which courses men and women undertake; how people from the different ethnic minority communities fare, which is particularly important at present; how people with disabilities get on and the job destinations of people according to those categories and the courses they take. The Government have developed the useful concept of postcode definition, which is welcome as the best proxy we have for socio-economic status. But we need more to be able to flush out areas of success and failure and monitor how the engine is working. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure us that under the new regime arrangements will be in place to collect full data on the experience in further and adult education of people in all our different communities.
My final point concerns the role of on-line learning. Information technology provides unprecedented opportunities for an almost limitless range of cheap—probably soon to be free—and accessible learning. The University for Industry, "Learning Direct", under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, develops a range of distance learning. However, there is also a multiplicity of other packages. Colleges and students need to know which of those are reliable. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what accreditation systems exist which will ensure the quality of on-line learning. Apart from content, we must consider the conduit for on-line learning. Is the Minister satisfied that BT is making high bandwidth access affordable as soon as possible?
5.55 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, most of the relevant points have been made, so the good news is that I shall brief, which means about two hours!
As a businessman, overall I welcome the Bill. The reform and rationalisation of post-l6 education and training will meet the requirements of a rapidly changing world, and we must update. I agree that we do not want change for the sake of change. We already have too much bureaucracy. If the Bill becomes an Act, it must be in the spirit of minimum bureaucracy. That must be the aim.
A decade ago, as a member of the national training task force, I was involved in the establishment of TECs. I believe that by and large they have done a good job. However, they have been surrounded by a huge amount of bureaucracy. Quite often the "E" of TECs got lost in that process. Why, therefore, do we need change? We still have a patchy situation on training. Certainly, enough is not being done by employers.
The changes proposed in the Bill provide an opportunity to raise standards and to ensure that skills and education meet the needs of individuals and—which has not been stressed enough—employers, both public and private, for the new century. That is essential not only for economic development but in order to tackle the subject of inclusiveness. Quite often
924
we are institutionally racist in some of our approaches to training without—it is to be hoped—realising it. We treat all people alike. That may sound democratic. However, if one is disabled or one's first language is not English, perhaps one needs a little more than average assistance. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a passionate believer in equality of opportunity.
The aspirations and commitments of the White Paper and the council prospectus set out in strong language the "gut feel" for what it was about. In my view, some of that was lost in the drafting of the Bill. We should perhaps try, in Committee, to build passion into the Bill—I do not know whether that is allowed in Committee—but I believe that the Bill needs a touch more passion, as was in the prospectus.
We must ensure that, alongside requirements of individuals, the changing needs of employers are anticipated. It is no use saying that we must learn the skills we require. As we all know, the skills we need are constantly changing, not least in the area of IT, but also in many other areas. The workplace needs people with up-to-date skills which are relevant to the future, not the past, and who have positive attitudes to work. We have come a long way in the past decade but we have to go a lot further.
If this challenge is to be achieved, the business community must play a central role in determining educational needs and the need for skills. We must establish a culture where employer investment in raising skill levels is the norm and not the exception. Many companies are being given prizes for their excellent training. But perhaps training should be so commonplace that we do not even notice it.
Last October the Secretary of State for Education and Employment confirmed—I understand that the Minister repeated some of that today—that there would be a strong business experience element in the members of national and local councils. That is essential. We must have representatives on the councils who believe in action rather than words. They could perhaps have not just business experience, but also local government experience and experience in further education. An amendment defining more clearly those needs was referred to by several noble Lords, so I can delete the next six pages of my speech and merely say that I support that need.
My second point—in this case my thunder was stolen by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who proceeded to quote most of the statistics I intended to quote—relates to regional co-ordination. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned the need to fit in with the regional development agencies' skills strategies. That is fundamental. We must stop talking about "joined-up government" and actually see it in action.
Another reason why there must be close liaison at local level is the councils' approach to further education colleges. Their catchment and specialities cross boundaries. We must be careful that that does not become a graveyard situation rather than a dynamic situation. The Bill makes no provision for regional co-operation between councils—at least, I

925
have not found it. When the chief executive of the national council is appointed he should be encouraged to foster such links.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said most of what I intended to say in relation to London. The business community supported the five local councils in London. After years of in-depth analysis we ended up with north, south, east, west and central, but only after a lot of fierce debate. I completely accept what the noble Lord said; that is, that we must have pan-London co-operation and co-ordination. Many people come from outside of London and travel straight through those zones to work.
I am sure that we in this House support with a passion the need for skills improvement. As I say, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, stole all the exciting statistics in relation to London, but some are worthy of repetition. Only one employer in three has a formal training plan, partly because they consist of small and medium-sized businesses. One in three people, when questioned, admitted lacking a relevant skill for their job, but had no individual plan or even concern about doing something about it. So the individual approach is important.
One in four of London residents had no or minimal qualifications. Given that we are a world-leading city, that is a terrible situation. In time that will result in unemployment in London being above the national average. There may be 120,000 jobs on offer, but the people with the relevant skills cannot be found to fill them—some of the skills being quite basic. The skills gap produces the lack of inclusiveness that we see. If one has no basic skills to offer, or even cannot move up the work ladder, then it is not surprising that one lacks interest and drops out.
I am speaking of London but I am sure that it is true also of other areas of England, and also Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We must tackle some of those needs, not only to achieve economic progress but also to improve the whole area of maintaining an inclusive society. The vital strategic task for the councils at local, regional and national level will be to work with employers and with educational and training activities to anticipate and tackle future demands for skills and training.
My concern is that the Bill as drafted is too supply-driven rather than demand-pulled. We must have more reference to involving employers, both public and private, and getting them to do their full job on skill development. We must involve them in doing more and spending more money.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining this Bill to us. I agree that it is an important Bill for business and industry.
A significant reason for the productivity gap about which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone spoke is the lack of skills and education on the shopfloor. I have always put that down to the neglect of the FE sector by government
926
and the lack of training by employers. I suppose it is pointing out the obvious when I say that the latest knowledge and technology are useless unless we have the workers trained and able to put it into practice.
So I welcome the Government's intention to give a better deal to FE colleges. It is long overdue. The buildings, staff and resources of our FE colleges are the largest resource in the nation's FE sector. It is a scandal that they have not been used more effectively. It is symptomatic of that neglect that levels of pay in FE colleges have fallen behind that of sixth forms.
Because the unit of provision of each A-level student is lower in FE colleges than in schools, there is a constant temptation for skilled staff at FE colleges to move to school sixth forms for better pay. It is of no benefit to our economy when a skilled instructor in computer-aided design, working with industry and trainees from industry, is rated lower than a sixth-form teacher. That is why, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I welcome the learning and skills council taking control of sixth-form pay. It can create the level playing field which we all seek.
Another significant waste of resources which the Bill will correct is the competition which was encouraged among colleges, councils, training organisations and TECs. The partnership and co-operation that the Bill sets out to encourage are much more in keeping with modern thinking. I do not see this as the complexity about which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke. On the contrary, this co-operation will enable the local education authorities, the councils, the training organisations and the colleges to work together to respond in a realistic way to the needs identified by the National Skills Audit. Co-operation and partnership will achieve that in a way which competition never could. In addition, it should encourage many more diverse ways of industry working with the colleges.
However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, I too regret the absence of the national training organisations in the Bill. The national training organisations are important because it is through them that many employers inform and set the learning and skills agenda within their industries. That is how they apply the new technology of which my noble friend Lord Puttnam spoke; it is the way in which older industries re-invent themselves as knowledge-based businesses and become the ".com" businesses about which he was so enthusiastic.
It is important, therefore, that employers have their say. Their voice will be restricted in the learning and skills council because 40 per cent of its members will be employers. But the council is limited to 16 people. Are those six or seven employers sufficient to represent the huge diversity of trades, businesses and industries in our economy? I do not want the council to be large and unwieldy, but the answer may lie in a special arrangement with the national trading organisations.
At long last there are proposals to develop a national tariff and funding system instead of leaving it to the whim of local TECs. To be successful, the

927
learning and skills council will have to introduce realistic differential rates of funding to reflect the different costs or training. It costs about £8,000 to train someone to Level 3 in business administration. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, told us that it costs £28,000 to train someone to NVQ Level 3 in engineering. I agree with him. Unless the new council deals effectively with these differential rates, apprenticeships and training in engineering and other technologies will suffer. That is why the input of employers speaking through their national training organisations is important. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will give this consideration.
The Bill will see the demise of the TECs. This should mean a new and fresh start. It should not mean that the local learning and skills councils will become the old TECs in a new guise with just a straight transfer of staff. I hope that the learning and skills councils will recruit their staff on merit with an appropriate mix of expertise and experience and that the jobs will be open equally to all applicants. In this way the Bill will also breathe some new life into training at the local level.
I note that the learning and skills councils will have particular responsibility for life-long learning. This is of particular importance to the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises which cannot train on their premises and which rely on the FE colleges and training organisations to help them raise their performance. Tin emphasis has to be on continuous learning as well as life-long learning because skills and knowledge become obsolete so quickly. The new skills and knowledge, which are essential to make companies competitive, arise very fast. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, referred to changing skills.
To this end, I am glad that my noble friend the Minister mentioned the DTI Foresight programme. Foresight is a very ambitious programme designed to prepare and inform industry about change in different sectors of our economy. It should be encouraged because each sector of Foresight will create a pool of knowledge and a vision of the future to help managers cope with, and prepare for, the change mentioned by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. Education, skills and training will be part of this vision. So the learning and skills councils must draw on this "foresight" to determine the skills and knowledge needed to make our small and medium-sized enterprises more competitive and innovative; and deliver this through continuous life-long learning.
There is a real need here to see some joined-up government between the DTI and the DfEE. Skills and learning are time-consuming and costly in money, emotion and dedication. We cannot afford waste. I agree with my noble friend Lady David. Good quality advice must go together with guidance as the best way to avoid this waste and reduce the number of drop-outs. Locating advice and guidance to adults with the learning and skills councils should help to avoid errors and help people make the right decisions in their future careers. It is an important aspect of the work of the learning and skills councils, and the Bill, rightly, gives it high priority. I am afraid that I do not
928
agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that this should be combined with the under-13 guidance because the two are entirely different.
There are good ideas and much common sense in this Bill, which should be welcomed by industry and business as well as the FE sector. Business is striving to raise its performance and competitiveness. Learning and skills are a crucial element in this struggle and the ideas in the Bill should help. I wish this Bill every success.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to begin by concentrating on those areas where I believe everyone who has spoken in this afternoon's debate is in agreement. There is no disagreement among any of us about the importance of the subject of further education nor about the need for skills training, re-training, life-long learning and adult education. The importance of this has long been recognised; indeed, it is not something that started in 1997. As my noble friend Lord Baker pointed out, the number of young people staying on in education from 1979 to 1997 nearly tripled. Speaking from memory, I believe that the numbers going into higher education went from being one in eight to one in three. That is a record of which we should be proud, but no one can be satisfied. One should always do better.
It is most important that we all start from the same starting-point; namely, that we need to try to answer some of these very difficult problems associated with getting some young people to stay on in education, stick it out and get the right skills. We must also match those people with jobs. Therefore, the question before us is: will the Bill succeed in doing just that?
In introducing the Bill, the Minister said—and I wrote this down, so I believe I quote her directly—that the Government are interested in standards, not structures. Yet this is a Bill about structures. There is no mention of teachers or of parents, let alone the young people upon whom the legislation is based. That point was well made by my noble friend Lady Blatch and also by my noble friend Lady Platt, who spoke from so much personal experience in Essex. Nor, indeed, has the Bill been greeted well universally by all those involved. For example, the Local Government Association said that it is,
"setting up a bureaucratic nightmare which hands the bulk of responsibility for £5 billion worth of public money to unelected quangos".
There is no local involvement in the Bill and very little mention of the private sector. Yet, as has been pointed out, if any of the legislation is to work the private sector has to be involved. The Training and Enterprise Councils National Council has asked for a majority of business men and women, or their representatives, to be on both the learning and skills council and the 47 regional councils and for the same to apply to all their chairmen. No doubt we will return to that point in Committee.
However, in saying this, I hope that we will look at some of the Bill's complexities during later stages of its consideration. I said that there is a great deal of

929
bureaucracy. Indeed, some of us—certainly myself and, I believe, others—took part quite recently in the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, which will establish a completely new structure for local government. That is going through concurrently while we consider the new structure in this Bill.
Local government, such as it was when I served in local government, will change. There will be elected mayors, and local education authorities of county councils will have elected chairmen, with a management committee of about eight or 10 members working alongside. How will all that fit into the new structure? The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, raised a very important point about having the director of education involved. But who knows whether there will even be a director of education in the future? This is by no means clear. It is not just a debating point: it is a very serious issue as to how all this will fit in.
One could look at the situation in the part of the country that I know to see how the regional councils will work out. They are not, of course, coterminous with local education authorities, although I understand that they will be in the case of Kent and Surrey. I believe that Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will be joined together; that East and West Sussex and Brighton and Hove will go together; that Berkshire, which now has six education authorities, will have just one; and that Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes will go together. This is quite a complicated structure at local level. At the top we will have the national learning and skills council, followed by the 47 local councils, the regional development agencies—which is quite a different area—and then, struggling along at the bottom the local life-long learning partnerships, together with the local education authorities, going right down to the school level. We need to pause to think whether that is really the best method of delivering something which we all want to see.
I touch on the cost of all this. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she will indicate whether the national learning and skills council will cost £5 or £6 billion. Both figures have been mentioned by the Secretary of State. It would be helpful to know which of the figures is correct. That is a great deal of money. It is optimistic to think that anything like £50 million worth of savings will be achieved. Some activities which were formerly conducted by TECs and the Training Standards Council will be dispensed with—they comprised much private money—but I understand that all those who are employed by TECs will be employed by the future councils. Therefore it is difficult to see where the savings will arise.
I should be interested to receive an explanation of paragraph 206 of the helpful Explanatory Notes which sets out the increases in the public service manpower. Paragraph 206 refers to the adult learning inspectorate (ALI) and the learning and skills council (LSC). It states:
"The LSC and ALI are likely to employ a total of around 5,000 staff".
930
The document states that some staff will be cut from the TECs and the Training Standards Council. However, if all the staff of the TECs are to be employed under the new arrangements, it is difficult to see how the sum of money involved will be reduced. I do not understand the paragraph. I hope that at some stage its meaning can be explained.
There are other important points that one should raise. We now know that the TECs are to go. Some of them have been immensely successful. Not surprisingly different TECs throughout the country have had different standards. I should be surprised if in the future the 47 regional councils do not have different standards. One does not get such uniformity in life. I believe that different standards will apply. I understand from those involved in TECs that there is a serious worry about training provision for businesses in particular. The new councils will, of course, be responsible for the learning skills that are required in this regard. However, I understand that the training required for other aspects of setting up a business will be the responsibility of the DTI. It would be helpful to know whether that is the case. If it is the case, it is less likely that the regional councils will be able to help new businesses to become established. I hope that that point will be responded to as I believe that it is important. My noble friend Lady Blatch referred to the anxiety that the new regional councils will not work "bottom up"; that is, finding out what is required and providing it. They will work "top down" and that will constitute a difficulty.
I wish to comment on Clauses 99 to 108 which cover the youth support service. Much concern has been expressed to me on this matter. The provision covers young people of 13 to 19 years of age. However, according to the Explanatory Notes, most of the effort will be concentrated on young people with special needs or who are "disengaged" from the educational scene. I believe that that is the expression that is now used. I do not object in any way to those people being helped. They need help; they should be helped, and I hope that they will be helped. However, it would be a great mistake to assume that others do not also require help. Anyone who has had anything to do with young people knows that the teenage years are difficult years for young people and for parents. It is difficult to determine what A-levels people should take, what courses they should take and what higher or further education courses they should choose. They need help. As I say, it would be a great mistake to assume that just because the parents of these young people may appear more affluent or more knowledgeable they know the intricate details of the education system. I do not think that that is the case. Those young people need help just as much as anyone else.
I cannot end without saying something about sixth forms. I am in complete agreement with everything that my noble friends Lord Pilkington and Lord Baker said. We should all be concerned at the

931
comments of the National Association of Head Teachers on this subject. The association states that,
"the Bill seems to allow the LSC to determine how much money individual sixth-forms might receive—indeed, whether they receive any money al all".
The association is concerned about "intervention overkill" and particularly about Schedule 7 to the Bill,
"where the LSC's powers to propose the closure of Inadequate' sixth-forms are spelt out.
A sixth-form is considered inadequate if it is failing or likely to fail to give an acceptable standard of education, or if it has significant weaknesses in one or more areas.
Unlike under the School Standards and Framework Act in relation to schools, there are no procedures set out to tackle problems and help turn the sixth-form around. Instead, if two inspection reports identify the sixth-form as being inadequate then proposals for closure can go forward".
I believe that that constitutes a serious situation and that it is a matter to which we shall have to give detailed consideration in Committee.
I also wish to comment on the inspection proposals. Two groups of inspectors are proposed, one of which is Ofsted, with which we are all familiar. I believe that Ofsted is now highly regarded and that we were all pleased when the Labour Government appointed Chris Woodhead, who has done a remarkable job. I mention also the other proposed inspection body, the adult learning inspectorate (ALI). As I understand it, Ofsted will inspect education for 16 to 19 year-olds, while ALI will inspect education for those aged 19-plus. However, many tertiary colleges and FE colleges have students in both age ranges. I do not quite understand how the system will work. Two groups of inspectors will be employed but some classes could comprise the complete age range of people. Any of us may decide to learn a foreign language at a local FE college and may find ourselves side-by-side with someone studying for a GCSE. That might be good for us all. As I say, a huge age range is involved here. Therefore I do not understand how the inspection proposals will work as they seem to apply to different age groups. We need to know precisely how this system is to work in practice.
No one has mentioned Wales but I have a question in connection with Clause 30. I am interested to note that we are discussing Wales at all in this connection. I was not sure that we were supposed to do that. However, clearly we are, devolution or no devolution. I understand that under the terms of Clause 30 the national assembly will appoint the members of the national council for education and training for Wales and its local councils. If the national assembly is to appoint those members in Wales, should not Parliament appoint members to the relevant body in England? How will the national assembly appoint these members? That does not seem to be clear at all. However, it seems to me prima facie a difficult matter for the assembly to decide. Perhaps that matter can also be discussed.
I conclude where I started. I believe that we all accept the importance of the issues involved. It is essential for our country and for our young people that they should be trained and qualified to the highest level
932
that they can attain; and that we should deal with the mismatch between unemployed people and job vacancies. These are difficult issues to tackle. However, they are important issues which must be tackled. In considering this whole issue we must be sure that we are establishing a structure that will make things better. I believe that we shall need to tackle a great number of detailed issues at the Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in praise and welcome of the new youth support element for 13 to 19 year-olds in the Bill and its connection with the rest of the Government's programme. Before I do so, perhaps I may say how delighted I was to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is chairman of the Working Men's College. Some 15 years ago I was a student at the Working Men's College. I suggest to the Minister that she instantly doubles the funding for that marvellous institution.
I should like to put the Bill in the context of the rest of the Government's programme towards particularly disadvantaged young people and children. The Government have well proved their genuine concern for children and young people. When enacted, the Care Standards Bill will eventually give to the many committed and hard working staff in children's homes recognition for their extremely challenging work. It will ensure that they have a basic training qualification. Most staff currently have no such qualifications. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill extends the duties of local authorities to look after young people beyond 16 to 18 years of age. It introduces named individual workers to support care leavers in their first years of independence.
This may seem to be beside the point in the context of this Bill, but the Government are taking very seriously the needs of the least supported young people and that needs to be highlighted.
The New Deal has provided the sort of personal supervision that many young people find most helpful. The Sure Start programme has targeted support at the most vulnerable families and children, thereby offering better life chances for the most underprivileged.
The Bill before us brings yet more timely, innovative and, let us hope, effective assistance for disadvantaged young people. The new youth support service would appear to offer a very valuable resource for such young people. One concern may be in regard to the training of the officers and supervisors involved in this new resource. I understand that the regulations covering their training need to be completed and in the public domain by early next year. There is a lot of work to be done on that. Can the Minister assure the House that enough resources will be available to develop the service?
The report on rough sleepers, Coming in from the Cold, may be of interest to the Minister—I am sure she has already considered it. A major plank of its

933
programme is that people have to be encouraged to come in off the streets and, once they are in a hostel, they have to be given something constructive to do. They very much need to learn useful and interesting skills for themselves.
I should also like to draw attention to Buffy House, which is run by Centrepoint and provides a good example of how training can improve the quality of a workforce. Buffy House deals with some of the most challenging young people, who have difficult life histories behind them, and yet its staff have the lowest sickness rate in Centrepoint. This is because they have had a very innovative programme over several years. It is something which should be expanded, and I believe that there are plans to expand the training programme.
Thanks to the Government we are moving closer to the time when no young person or child who lacks parental support or who is particularly challenged need ever walk alone. Every step in this direction is a great achievement. I say three cheers for this concern, for the new youth support scheme and for the Government's general nurturing of the most vulnerable young Britons.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the framework that it will provide for bringing together the various strands of our education and training system and for safeguarding quality and standards.
I also welcome the fact that the Bill has had a warm reception across a wide spectrum of opinion within the education and training sphere. This is a recognition of the fact that, as a nation, we have failed a large section of our community in providing the right structures and the right incentives to progress through the education and training system. As a consequence, we have failed to train and equip our workforce to the best of international standards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated. For this, the nation has paid dearly in terms of international competition. In higher education we are competitive and provide a system of world-class level, but below this, we do not. This is in spite of the many schemes and initiatives which have taken place over recent decades, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, indicated.
In saying this, I am not claiming that everything is poor—clearly not. Progress has been made in the growing numbers of students who are staying on in schools and colleges and in the development of life-long learning and continuing education. This progress and these successes must be built into the new system. However, a fully integrated and comprehensive system capable of delivering on the scale required has been lacking. This is what the Bill is about.
I should like to turn now to a number of areas for clarification. First, the universities. The Bill is not about higher education but there is a reference in one of the supporting papers to the seamless process of education, with the universities at the pinnacle.
934
The division between academic and vocational education is becoming more and more blurred. In recent years the universities have done valuable work in developing continuing education, with more and more collaboration with colleges in delivering what employers and professional bodies are demanding. For example, the University of Bradford co-operates very closely with Bradford College, one of the largest FE colleges in Europe, on both degree and sub-degree work, as well as sharing physical resources. Universities—certainly my own university, Bradford—are also involved as local partners in economic social and community development. They rightly want to safeguard their academic independence; nevertheless, they have a very important contribution to make to strategic planning, both nationally and locally. So I ask my noble friend what part they will play in the consultative process and through what mechanisms.
Secondly, how will existing partners be brought into the network, particularly local government, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing mentioned? Clearly, local government has an important role in relation to schools for 16 to 19 year-olds and in community education, but will it have a function in relation to vocational education and training and life-long learning? In recent years, its economic development plans and strategies have had to incorporate these issues. How will such links be made under the proposed new structures and the annual plans for which the local learning and skills councils will be responsible?
In particular, I ask this question about the larger local learning and skills councils, such as West Yorkshire. That is one of the largest, incorporating five metropolitan district councils, including Leeds, the second largest, and Bradford, the fourth largest metropolitan district council in England. Three of those five metropolitan district councils have their own TECs and two share a TEC. To take Bradford as an example, the local council and the Bradford TEC have built up a network of local partnerships to work together in the interests of the district. This has included all the employer-based organisations and many individual employers. How will these partnerships relate to the local learning and skills council? Will the link be made through existing partnerships or will it be made directly from the LLSC to the local authorities and the other individual partners? This is an important point and is the kind of question that is being asked locally.
Of the four West Yorkshire TECs, it appears that Bradford has the best centrally located premises with good facilities for expansion. No doubt it will put in a bid to have the LLSC based in Bradford, as will the other districts for their areas. Who will determine this decision and under what criteria? The competing districts all have different strengths and weaknesses and different needs from the new structure. I hope that those strengths and requirements will be looked at closely to determine where the local learning and skills councils will be based.

935
I shall move on to the area of successful schemes operating at both district and wider levels. My noble friend Lord Haskel and other noble Lords referred to some of the national training bodies. The FE21 Group, an association of now 23 leading FE colleges, is concerned that some national partnerships it has established are under threat because of concentration on local priorities. In its paper it gives a number of examples of which I shall mention two. First, Barnsley College's partnership with the security industry training organisation has resulted in up to around 17,000 qualifications being achieved each year in this industry. It is one with a poor track record for training and often recruits workers from those on the margins of social exclusion. Surely it is important to encourage schemes of that kind. Secondly, Stafford Training College works with the licensed retail sector, again an area where there is not much training, but one where many thousands of unqualified bar staff may set their first foot on the lifelong learning ladder. Will some encouragement be given to organisations and initiatives such as these to continue?
I should like to refer—as have many other noble Lords—to work-based training. The emphasis of the Bill appears to be put on training and education facilities for 16 to 19 year-olds in established institutions. I recognise the high priority that must be given to this age group. However, we should not forget that vast number of workers are in unskilled jobs, many of them doing skilled work for which they have no formal qualifications. Employers, both nationally and locally, will feed in their skill requirements to the annual plans. Many of those requirements will have to be met through the colleges and other training providers. But what about employer training provision? Is there to be some incentive for providing recognised training on the job, in particular at NVQ Levels 1 and 2? To gain recognition at this level can be an enormous encouragement to low-skilled workers to progress further.
Some up-skilling will be carried out through the UfI. Indeed, there are great expectations for that body. Furthermore, sonic will be carried out through the Internet. But for those at the very bottom of the skills ladder, something more simple, supervised and available at their place of work is necessary. From that point, workers will be able to progress and take advantage of some of the distance learning provisions. However, those workers must be given incentives to move on and to progress their training.
In putting these points, I am conscious of the fact that the Bill mark; a new beginning in our provision for education and training. It is important that, from the start, we ensure that it is successful. The Bill seeks to establish equity between the academic and vocationally minded and to provide for opportunities throughout life. Furthermore, it sets out to provide the skills the nation needs. I welcome this change and will do all I can to ensure that it is successful.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I was fearful that I would have to begin today with a somewhat bitter apology,
936
but that has proved unnecessary. I advised the Minister that I needed to be in Brussels this morning and I knew that it would be up to Eurostar whether I arrived at the House in time for the Second Reading debate. However, thanks to Eurostar, I believe that I missed only the first speech and so perhaps merely a small apology is due. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for speaking at the point in the debate when I would otherwise have done if I had had the confidence in Eurostar that perhaps I should have had.
As my noble friend has already said, we on these Benches extend a broad welcome to the Bill. It contains many welcome features and clearly is a serious attempt both to put post-16 learning in schools and colleges on a more coherent and integrated footing and to make a reality of lifelong learning. Furthermore, I welcome the Bill because it puts the focus on further education. For that reason I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, because I believe that, at least until recently, further education has been a neglected sector.
During my five years in the House I have heard many debates on higher education, and rightly and properly so, but very, very few—indeed, I have to think hard of any—on further education. That is not because none of us thinks it is important; it has been one of the problems faced by the further education sector. I believe that the focus provided by the Bill will help to correct that and I hope that the provisions of the Bill will do more to correct that in the future.
I give a broad welcome to the Bill but I must confess to some disappointment, too. I suppose it is too much to hope that a piece of, inevitably, rather dry and complex legislation could ever capture the passion and excitement of the Kennedy Report. To translate that is perhaps beyond any parliamentary draftsman, but I wish that it had managed to capture a little more of the vision that was in the Government's White Paper. We cannot move amendments to include passion, but perhaps we can find some way of amending the Bill to include a little more vision.
There are a number of ways in which we wish to see the Government be more radical. I shall come to those in a moment. At this stage I wish to take up one or two of the points referred to by other noble Lords. The first is the extremely important subject of sixth forms. I very much hope that our discussions and deliberations on the Bill do not turn into a "save our sixth forms" campaign. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us—I certainly hope that she does—that good sixth forms in schools are not under threat from the Government or from the Bill. If they are, I certainly share the concerns expressed by other speakers.
I know, as I am sure other noble Lords know, how important to schools their sixth forms are. Perhaps I may give one local example from my own LEA. A few years ago we were fortunate to persuade the then Conservative government to allow us to build a brand new comprehensive school in spite of objections from the local grant-maintained selective schools. We felt that was a significant achievement, coming from a Conservative government. The school was

937
subsequently opened by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and has continued to prosper from that important start. A year or so ago we applied to have a sixth form at the school. Initially, the Government turned down that application, but we had a meeting with the Minister, who suggested that perhaps we should try a different approach. We did so. That approach was to work with the local further education college. With its support we were then able to make another application for a sixth form. I am pleased to say that the Minister has recently agreed to that. I should like to take that as an indication that the Government recognise the importance to many schools of having a good, viable sixth form.
I hope also that we shall not get into the either/or argument; that it is all good to have a school sixth form or it is all good to have post-16 provision in FE colleges. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, nodding her head. I do not think that anyone believes that and I fully accept that she does not. I have an example of that in my own family. My older son stayed on for the sixth form at school and did very well. My younger son—only two years younger and at the same school—felt that he wanted to leave after his GCSEs. He went to an FE college and did equally well. What we are talking about is horses for courses, although I am not sure that my sons will thank me for calling them horses.
My next point, which noble Lords would expect me to make, concerns the role and involvement of local government in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to a meeting in this House which we both attended at which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Malcolm Wicks, under a little pressure from the noble Baroness, but quite rightly so, said that local government will be represented on each local learning skills council. I hope that the Minister will specifically confirm to us that there will be a local government representative or representatives on each local learning skills council—there as of right and not there because they happen to be among those who have been appointed as the "great and the good".
That is a crucially important point, for two reasons: first, because local education authorities have a major role to play in the provision and planning of post-16 education; and, secondly, for the important reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. We have a duty to promote the economic and social well-being of our areas. We have an important community leadership role. Therefore, it is right for that reason as well that local government should be represented on the local skills councils. I take the point entirely that the local government representatives need to be worthy representatives and not just be there because it is something they do every other Tuesday evening to fill in a little time. None of us wants that. We want good, effective representation, but representation that we need.
I wish to turn now to a subject which, until the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke, I was going to say had rather remarkably not been mentioned at all, apart from by my noble friend Lady Sharp. I refer to Wales.
938
Two of the five parts and two of the nine schedules of the Bill are devoted exclusively to Wales. Yet that has barely been referred to at all in the debate. We welcome the recognition of a separate national council for Wales and congratulate the Minister on ensuring that all matters relating to the question of learning and skills in Wales have been set out separately. It is much more than cosmetic. A clear presentation will allow the members of the National Assembly of Wales to understand the provisions of the primary legislation—in that they differ from the Scottish Parliament—when it comes into force and to monitor much more easily the powers and the functions of the proposed council. My Welsh colleagues will be taking part in later stages of the Bill so I shall confine my questions and comments to just one on this occasion.
Schedule 3 to the Bill imposes in England a positive requirement for the creation of adult learning committees. Schedule 5, dealing with Wales, provides specifically for regional committees but, rightly, leaves it in the hands of the members of the Welsh Assembly to determine such other committees as they think fit. I hope the Minister can confirm that there will be ample scope for the Welsh Assembly to make a similar provision for an adult learning committee in Wales.
Perhaps I may now turn to our specific concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he is still a little unclear about the link between regional development agencies and local learning and skills councils. So am I. The noble Lord also referred—I do so, too, as a London member—to the need for London-wide co-ordination between the proposed five London learning and skills councils. I am not sure whether I heard the Minister correctly but I hope she will confirm that that will be the case. We could get rid of all of that uncertainty and possible duplication and confusion. We believe that the work of the local learning and skills councils should be undertaken by the regional development agencies. In London we are to have a London Development Agency answerable to the mayor. Do we really need five learning and skills councils separate from that?
The Bill refers to a duty to consult,
"any relevant regional development agency".
We would wish to make the local learning and skills councils a part of the RDAs. If we are to develop a series of sensible strategic overviews of the whole provision of post-16 education, training and lifelong learning, including university, college, school and workplace provision, we need regional strategies.
I turn now to the central vision, which is to use the Bill to begin constructing a learning society for England and Wales in a century that will be characterised by the importance of knowledge, information and rapidly changing skills. We believe that we need to construct a seamless web of coherent provision for all learners, perhaps from the age of 14 right on through their working lives and thereafter. Sadly, the Bill does not quite do that. The infinite English capacity for anomaly and contradiction is apparent at every turn. Many Ministers and others have spoken of the importance in the 21st century of

939
lifelong learning; and rightly so. They speak of adult access to re-skilling and new training, perhaps in community schools; and rightly so. But the Government seem not to have the courage to put post-19 education and training on the same footing as that provided for the post-16 learners.
To illustrate, the Bill provides in Clause 2(2) that for post-16 education,
"Facilities are proper if they are—

(a) of a quantity sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of individuals, and

(b) of a quality adequate to meet those needs".

If your Lordships feel that words like "sufficient" and "adequate" are themselves a trifle unambitious and unpromising they should look at the words of Clause 3(2) of the Bill which describe facilities for lifelong learning:
"Facilities are reasonable if (taking account of the Council's resources) the facilities are of such a quantity and quality that the Council can reasonably be expected to secure their provision".
In plain language, it means that as much lifelong learning will be provided as the Government choose to afford regardless of the needs of learners. That is not equitable and we shall seek to amend it.
In the same way, there is a new dispensation under which all post-16 learning provision, whether in school sixth forms, sixth form colleges, FE colleges, or wherever, will be organised and funded on the same basis. Is not the aim to integrate all this provision with the provision of lifelong learning? Why on earth do we have the anomaly of two inspection agencies falling over each other to inspect the provision? Why do we need complex rules about "joint inspection" and a "common inspection framework"? The obvious and radical answer is to have a single inspection agency for all post-16 education and training which will see its work in the context of lifelong learning.
I turn to the Careers Service. A major opportunity for radical action has again been lost. What is needed is a single, coherent and integrated service (inspected by the adult learning inspectorate) to be established for all learners from the age of 13 right through their working lives. At this point I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that I believe he misheard my noble friend Lady Sharp. In the context of careers guidance my noble friend did not refer to under-13 year-olds but post-13 year-olds. I am sure that that will be revealed when the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow.
Much more thought needs to go into this crucial aspect of the education service so that all learners get high quality advice, excellent information and, above all, are led to have high expectations of themselves and the institutions which will train and educate them. We should work towards a system in which every young person, perhaps between the ages of 14 and 19, has a nominated mentor who will oversee progress through the education and training system, advise on both short-term and long-term goals, keep up morale and help learners to re think when matters do not go quite according to plan. Such mentorships will be invaluable if young people are doing courses at more than one institution, as envisaged in the Bill, or perhaps in part
940
in the workplace. Mentorships could very well be developed as part of the Careers Service, but certainly in conjunction with it.
As my noble friend Lady Sharp said, mechanisms need to be established to encourage the small business sector to become involved in the work of the local learning and skills councils as an arm of each RDA. We still live in a culture where business is too disengaged from what is often seen as education's ivory tower. The small business sector needs to be involved from the bottom up. I understand its difficulties in achieving that.
We give the Bill a broad welcome and look forward to the opportunities to improve it. I very much hope that this time the Government will not close their mind to constructive criticism.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. I am pleased that there is a fair degree of consensus about the need for change and reform in the provision of post-16 learning. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the Government will listen to constructive criticism. We look forward to the further stages of the Bill in this House. I was especially pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Baker, praise further education. I only wish, as I believe does the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that more people would take notice of this essential part of our educational system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that it is a pity that the government of which he was part did not shower this sector with more assistance rather than deny it funding at a time when it desperately needed it.
The one speech that I found somewhat grating was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle. I believe that the tone of her remarks was a little over the top. I accept that with a Bill of this kind the noble Baroness will not agree with everything, but it would have been nice if she could have found just one or two positive comments to make. Clearly, she felt unable to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to an all-party meeting held last week on adult education and made some extremely unfair remarks about my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for lifelong learning. This was not a Bill briefing in the broad sense of the term. As is normal practice, between Second Reading and Committee stage I shall provide such briefing for Members of this House. The meeting was concerned with the narrow issue of the adult and community learning aspects of the Bill. The noble Baroness referred to a number of issues which I do not believe were pertinent to the matters which that meeting intended to discuss.
In everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about the Bill—in this respect I include the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle—I believe that she and her noble friend were out of touch with the vast majority of people who responded to the White Paper published in the summer which dealt with the matters to be covered in the Bill. I say to both noble Baronesses

941
that the Government are in no way embarrassed to abolish something that is not working as well as it might. While we are extremely grateful for the work of the TECs and the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees, the time has come for change. That will not be incremental but radical change that brings both sides of provision, work-based and college-based learning, closer together. I believe that that is the right approach to take.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, suggested that the Bill was not about standards. I am flabbergasted to hear that. Much of the Bill is about raising standards. The whole of that part of the Bill dealing with inspection—a long and important element—is concerned with raising standards. That is what the Government are determined to do in this part of the education system.
I am, however, very grateful to the Liberal Democrat Benches, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for their broad welcome, not only for the English parts of the Bill but also the provisions relating to Wales. As to the specific question on Wales put by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the answer is, yes. I am always grateful, as I suspect would be Ministers in any government, for the strong endorsement of our proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
A number of noble Lords suggested that things had been left out of the Bill. We do not believe that it is necessary to legislate on everything. One example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, was the examining boards, or the awarding bodies as they are formally known. They will continue their work, but we do not need to legislate for them. No doubt they will work closely with the learning and skills councils where it is appropriate that they should do so.
Another issue that is pertinent is the position of the national training organisations. We set out in the prospectus for the learning and skills council a central role for the national training organisations in the new arrangements. As I said in my introductory speech, it is essential that the LSC works closely with NTOs which are uniquely placed to represent the needs of the different sectors. That relationship will be characterised, for example, by the sharing of labour market information and by joint planning and action to address skills shortages. However, currently there are 72 national training organisations covering a very wide range of industries and occupations. One is chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. The network is very new and still evolving. It is important that the relationship develops in a flexible way. For example, at local level, LSCs and NTOs may wish to work through NTO groups rather than on an individual basis. For these reasons, we do not believe it appropriate or necessary to provide a statutory basis for the relationship. I reassure noble Lords that we expect that all business members of local LSCs will develop strong links with the appropriate NTO.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether the DTI would have responsibility for workforce development training. The answer is no. The learning
942
and skills council will manage the current TEC budgets for modern apprenticeships and investment in people. However, it will work very closely with the small business service, which is the responsibility of the DTI, in order to give as seamless a service as possible to small firms.
A number of noble Lords opposite raised concerns about bureaucracy. I believe that a number of contributors on the Conservative Benches accused the Government of introducing more bureaucracy. However, this Bill is an attack on bureaucracy and on the complexity and waste of the current system. The noble Baroness shakes her head. In the current legislative framework we have out of date and unnecessary distinctions between what the FEFC can and cannot fund and between further education colleges and local education authorities. For example, we have confusion and arbitrary barriers to which the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, referred over what is and what is not Schedule 2 provision. We have 72 separate training and enterprise councils with their own structures and levels of provision. Providers have a surfeit of audit. The National Audit Office has identified some 25 different agencies that could be scrutinising FE colleges annually. We have duplication and a lack of coherence at every level. We are going to get rid of that.
The Bill allows convergence and coherence across all provider sectors whether it be in funding principles, planning or quality standards. It gives business, local authorities and other key partners a role across all provision for post-16 education and training. It offers the real strength of a single national organisation planning and funding all post-16 provisions. I readily accept that we need local flexibility within that. That is why we are providing for 47 local councils, each with their own board, drawn from local communities and businesses. They will have sufficient local flexibility and autonomy to allow them to match provision to local needs and to meet skills shortages. They will typically control budgets of £100 million with very significant local discretion over spending. So I utterly refute the suggestion made by some noble Lords opposite that this is a top-down centralising Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I say to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the Bill provides for very close involvement at local level with the regional development agencies, local authorities and other key interests. Local councils have a duty to consult RDAs and LEAs over their plans. They must have regard to the local strategies of RDAs. The prospectus for the LSC also sets out clearly the very close involvement of local learning partnerships with whom we shall also require the local LSCs to consult closely. It will be a system driven by local needs and solutions with the advantage of some central provision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked how RDAs and LSCs will work and questioned their boundaries. She asked about the way in which the boundaries had been set up for the local LSCs. We asked RDAs to consult local partners during the summer and advise

943
how the boundaries should reflect travel-to-work areas and travel-to-learn areas. We accepted their recommendations in the vast majority of cases. Contrary to what the noble Baroness suggested, we have achieved coterminus boundaries in virtually every case and with the small business service which will benefit working with small businesses.
The noble Baroness also asked about the skills task force report. We are very grateful for a very imaginative and innovative report. When it is established, the learning and skills council will take forward its recommendations by improving adult advice and guidance and developing national and local workplace strategies and producing local authority assessments of skills needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked how the £50 million saving that I mentioned is made up. The savings come from two main sources. Nearly £15 million will be saved because we shall no longer need so many Government Office staff to contract with the 72 TECs. The remainder will come from fewer local branches, there being 47 instead of 72. There will be more efficient funding systems with fewer people needed to operate them. We shall save at least £50 million to reinvest in the quality of learning for individuals. That is another sense in which this Bill is about standards and quality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that there was no mention of the private sector. I am not sure whether she meant business, but I assume she did. We have taken business with us at every step. We set up a business champions group under the chairmanship of Nick Reilly, the chairman and managing director of Vauxhall Motors, to advise the Government on how best to ensure that the learning and skills council meets business needs.
In responding to our White Paper, businesses welcomed the increased opportunities that our proposals will bring. Business will be the single largest player in the learning and skills council. We have already said that 40 per cent of national and local members of the learning and skills council, including the national chair and most local chairs, will have substantial recent business experience.
The provisions in the LSC prospectus are a very firm commitment of government policy. Nobody should be in any doubt that we mean to give business a bigger and wider say in post-16 learning.
Another area which gave rise to concern, particularly among noble Lords opposite, was the question of the role of local authorities. Today is a good day for them, for other community-based providers and for the adult learners whom they serve. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this Bill is not just about young people, but about learners of every conceivable age up to the age of 80 or beyond. I look forward to the day when I can participate in it myself.
The new environment for post-16 learning will give local authorities flesh opportunities to influence the planning of all adult learning and not just non-vocational education. Local authorities will play a key
944
role in helping to ensure that local learning provision is responsive to community needs. They will be involved in many ways—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was making about local authorities was that currently there is a Bill going through your Lordships' House to completely reform local authorities. We are not at all clear how their educational responsibilities will be carried out. I simply drew attention to the fact that both Bills are going through this House in parallel. It is very important that we should be clear as to how one fits into the other.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that there is perfectly good joined-up government thinking going on as regards the different Bills introduced in this House and rather close to each other. However, if I may continue, local authorities will play a very important role. They will be key players represented on the boards of local LSCs or FE college governing bodies, or as members of local learning partnerships. In reply to my noble friend Lady Lockwood, they will not just be deliverers of learning, but key partners. Key players are needed to provide vision and leadership for local communities and to ensure coherence between compulsory education and post-16 learning. That is why, as is set out in the Bill, local authorities will be consulted at a very early stage as the local LSCs draw up their plans. Indeed, provided they secure high quality provision, they will have an opportunity to bid for more funding under these new comprehensive learning arrangements and they will no longer be subject to the artificial distinction imposed by existing legislation about what they can and must fund.
We want all local authorities to adopt a proactive approach towards lifelong learning and to continue to play their central role in adult and community learning. Indeed, we are keen to support those LEAs which produce and effectively implement their lifelong learning plans and intend to maintain their current level of spending in this vital area. To this end, we have announced that such LEAs are guaranteed at least the same funding as they receive now in the first two transitional years of the new arrangement. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a fair deal which recognises what local authorities are doing now and rewards them accordingly while leaving scope for further development in adult and community learning, both through local authorities and a range of other providers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. My specific question was whether the expenditure on sixth forms is being sustained per pupil in real terms.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can give that answer immediately, although I was going to address it later in relation to sixth forms, an issue raised by a

945
number of noble Lords. The answer to the noble Baroness' question is yes, as long as the numbers are maintained in the sixth form concerned.
We have also been questioned about the representation of local authorities on LSC boards. In response, I should like to reiterate and emphasise the statement in the LSC prospectus:
"We would expect the national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of local communities through local authority experience."
Our intention is that membership of each local LSC should include someone with substantial recent experience of local government, and like other members they should serve the interests of the LSC as a whole. All appointments will be made under Nolan principles. For all appointments to the LSC, we want to choose the very best people we can find. Local learning partnerships will also be very important in the new arrangements.
I should like to turn to the issue of sixth forms and the concerns that have been expressed about our provisions in this respect. The Government want a successful and effective sixth form sector. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on that point. We believe that schools with sixth forms have a vital role to play in this respect and in the drive to secure success for all young people.
The new arrangements are not about closing small sixth forms or school sixth forms in rural areas. I may be disappointing my noble friend Lady David in relation to this matter. The new arrangements in the Bill are about achieving a sixth form sector based on coherence, quality and choice. Where pupil numbers do not drop, as I told the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sixth form budgets will be maintained in real terms. I very strongly agree with the opening comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on this issue.
In regard to coherence, I repeat what I said earlier. The LSC's involvement in funding and planning school sixth forms will ensure a genuinely coherent approach to post-16 learning across the FE schools divide. This was an objective that found very widespread support during the consultation from head teachers, from foundation schools, colleges and many others.
The Bill contains various new arrangements that will help secure the higher standards of school sixth form provision. Our only concern is one that we share with LEAs and schools—to ensure that, wherever it is provided, post-16 education is of the highest possible quality.
In terms of choice, the Bill will enable local authorities or other promoters to propose the creation of LEA maintained 16-to-19 schools. We will regularise the position of existing LEA 16-to-19 set-ups, such as the William Morris Academy. This is an indication of our support for, and the value we place upon, sixth form provision in the schools sector. All of this can only be good news for the sector and for young people.
946
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about top slicing of local authority funds. The department's consultation paper issued 10 days ago explains that the deduction or top slice of local authority funds will be on the basis of the post-16 block grant of current LEA expenditure. This will not include the money for those services that will not be funded by the LSC, such as LEAs' central administrative costs. We shall be consulting in the spring as to what exactly those services will be and make sure that LEAs are fairly rewarded. The transfer will not take place before 2002–03 at the earliest, and it will be subject to very detailed discussions involving school and LEA representatives.
Noble Lords raised a number of more specific questions about various aspects of sixth form provision. Unfortunately, I shall have to reply in writing.
I turn now to the issue of inspection. We are determined to raise standards and bring poor provision up to the level of the best. No single inspectorate could encompass the enormous scale and variety of post-16 education in England. Our proposals will build upon the success of Ofsted in raising school standards by bringing within its remit provision for young people in FE colleges. For the first time, the provision for young people doing similar courses in schools and FE colleges will be conducted by a single body. The new adult learning inspectorate will be responsible for inspection of all work-based provision and adult provision in FE colleges.
We listened very carefully to the views expressed in response to our White Paper. The common inspection framework will deliver a single transparent framework for inspection for all post-16 providers, and the Bill provides for a proper statutory period of consultation on how the new arrangements will work in practice. The common inspection framework will mean that where the remit from Ofsted and the adult learning inspectorate overlap, as they often will, there will be a single team of inspectors producing a single report, based upon a public document that explains clearly and simply what both inspectorates are looking for. There will be no duplication of activity. Our aim is to raise standards, and nothing is going to get in the way of that. I hope that that statement reassures noble Lords who have raised questions on this issue.
I am unable to answer any more specific questions, due to the constraint of time, because I want to say a few words about learning difficulties and disability issues as well as the youth support service. The needs of disabled people, students with special educational needs, is a subject that I know is of great concern to noble Lords, and it is one shared by the Government. We want to ensure that learners with special needs, learning difficulties or disabilities, are supported to ensure that they can achieve their full potential.
There are several provisions in the Bill that relate in particular to transitional arrangements for those who are moving on at the age of 16 and to the new use of the youth support service. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the Government are also committed to further reform. As I announced at the opening of the

947
debate, we will bring forward a Bill later in this Session to provide a comprehensive response to the recommendations for education of the Disability Rights Task Force.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was incredibly carping in what she said. A separate Bill offers the best opportunity to secure a coherent approach across Great Britain. It allows time for consultation with the education sector and disability groups which will be important given the issues which the task force rained. It allows noble Lords to give this key area their full attention when the Bill arrives. I look forward to presenting the Government's proposal to the House later in this Session.
Perhaps I may answer the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about transport for the disabled. Access funds will rise from £47 million this year to £89 million in 2000–01. They will cover transport costs. They must be available to all learners in need, including disabled students.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will forgive me if I write to him on the more specific questions he raised. I shall also write to my noble friend Lady Warwick about links with higher education. She raised a number of important points. I assure the House that the arrangements in the Bill will secure close links between the learning and skills council and the HE sector.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the youth support service. I was grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for what the Government are doing. The proposed new youth support service is an ambitious and, in our view, long overdue piece of joined-up policy at national and local levels. The service will embrace, not replace, existing support services for young people; and it will fill gaps, building on best practice. Consultation evidence indicates that it is widely welcomed by practitioners and young people alike. They, like us, are clear that agencies working together can achieve more for young people, their parents and communities than agencies working in isolation.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady David were concerned that services should be available under these arrangements for all young people aged between 13 and 19 years. I reassure them that this service will indeed be for all young people. It will be delivered through a network of personal advisers whose caseloads will ensure that the right level of contact and support is maintained for every young person in their area. They will, of course, work mostly with those who need most help. That is entirely rational, is it not? But they will give appropriate support to all young people including the most able.
I am running out of time. I opened the debate by saying that this Government have a vision of a learning society. We know that education is crucial in offering the right start in life and in allowing people throughout their lives to update their skills and improve their employability, to play an active role in local
948
communities and to help secure economic prosperity for this country. This Bill will help deliver that vision and secure the structures which will maximise the investment which this Government are committed to make to post-16 learning. In doing so, it will help to secure the skills and knowledge needed for all our futures. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister spent a great deal of time answering questions from the Opposition. My noble friend answered perhaps one of the questions I asked. I hope that my noble friend will write to me.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.34 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to make a modest, practical reform; namely, to create a public right of direct access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA) was established in 1967 for the investigation of complaints by members of the public of injustice resulting from maladministration by government departments. During the Second Reading debate on the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State, Richard Crossman, gave a useful catalogue of what would constitute maladministration:
"bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, arbitrariness and so on".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/66; col. 51.]
The model for the new office of the PCA was the Scandinavian ombudsman. It was first proposed by Justice, the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists, in 1961 in the Wyatt Committee's report, The Citizen and the Administration. I am proud to serve on the executive committee and council of Justice, and delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the distinguished chairman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is I think honorary vice-president of Justice and a long-standing and active champion of justice, will take part in the debate, together with other eminent jurists and former Members of Parliament.
The Justice proposal to create the PCA's office was rejected by Harold Macmillan's government in 1962, but the opposition of constitutional conservatives in Whitehall and elsewhere was overcome when Harold Wilson's first administration was elected in 1964. Unlike the ombudsmen in Scandinavia, the British Parliamentary Commissioner was tied to the

949
legislature to function as an extension of parliamentary scrutiny and control. The office was intended, as the government explained in their White Paper in 1965 (at paragraph 4 of The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, cmnd 2767), to provide MPs with,
"a better instrument which they can use to protect the citizen".
The Parliamentary Commissioner is an Officer of the House of Commons and can undertake an investigation only at the request of an MP to whom he reports the result. He makes an annual report to Parliament and is supported by the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration, which reports to another place on the commissioner's work and takes up with departments any cases where there has been an inadequate response to the commissioner's findings.
The commissioner's investigative powers cover over 100 government departments and non-departmental public bodies and most kinds of administrative action by those bodies. He has wide powers for carrying out his investigations. He has the same powers as the High Court to compel witnesses to attend for examination and can require any Minister or civil servant to provide relevant information or documents.
If he finds injustice caused by maladministration he may recommend to the department concerned whatever action he thinks should be taken by way of redress; but he has no powers of enforcement. Departments almost invariably comply with his recommendations. Redress may take the form of an ex gratia payment to the complainant, or an apology, or the reversal of the decision of which complaint was made. A department may also revise its procedures or practices for the future. If it appears to the commissioner that an injustice will not be remedied, he may make a special report on the case to Parliament.
The PCA's office therefore has great potential in promoting good government and providing the citizen with an inexpensive and non-adversarial form of redress for injustice resulting from maladminstration. The office has become a universally accepted and well-established part of our parliamentary system of government, increasing ministerial accountability. One great attraction of the system as an alternative to the legal process is that it is informal, speedy and involves no financial cost to the complainant. It is an excellent form of alternative dispute resolution.
The much-criticised and unnecessary hindrance to the public's right of access which the Bill seeks to remove is the so-called "MP filter", which fetters the powers of the PCA. As Professor Colin Turpin of Clare College, Cambridge, observed in British Government and the Constitution (1990, second edition) the MP filter,
"operates in an arbitrary way—some MPs rarely refer complaints to the PCA, while others do so frequently—and it is a hindrance to the ordinary citizen in need of a clear and simple remedy for grievances against the administration".
950
More recently, Dr Philip Giddings of the University of Reading has commented (in The Law and Parliament, 1998, edited by Dawn Oliver and Gavin Drewry, page 132) that,
"Removal of the filter could be expected to lead to a substantial increase in the number of cases reaching the PCA (as happened with the local government ombudsmen when direct access was permitted) … A related issue, and a critical one should the MPs' filter be removed, is public awareness of the PCA. A survey carried out in March 1995 found that less than half (46%) of the respondents had 'heard of the Parliamentary Ombudsman'. However effective a complaint-handling mechanism may be when in operation, potential complainants with justified grievances need first to know that it exists, and then how to bring it into play, if it is to be of any help to them … This issue of visibility closely connects with accessibility—whether the procedures … deter the less literate or less determined complainants".
Direct access to the ombudsman or equivalent officer by members of the public is allowed in most other countries that have such an institution. There is direct access to the health services and local government commissioners. To the best of my knowledge, the only two countries with a similar filter are France—in respect of the médiateurs—and Sri Lanka. It used to be the case that both the government and the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner wished to see the MP filter retained. In its first report, (House of Commons, 706, of 1987–88, paragraph 9) the Select Committee explained that the filter acted,
"as an extremely effective sifting mechanism and is one of the great strengths of the UK system. In effect, every individual Member of Parliament is himself an Ombudsman and deals in his elected capacity with many complaints without having to seek recourse to the PCA".
If that was still likely to be the prevailing view, I should not have been so presumptuous as to introduce the Bill. However, times and attitudes have changed significantly, above all because of the great change in the political complexion of the other place on 1st May 1997 with the election of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs committed to the modernisation of our parliamentary system. A survey of MPs conducted for the Select Committee in 1993 (First Report of the Select Committee of 1993–94, House of Commons, 33) found that the highest level of support for removing the filter was among the more recently elected Labour MPs. That tendency is surely much stronger in the new House of Commons; certainly, among Liberal Democrat, and, I should suppose, new Labour MPs.
In a recent debate on 19th October 1999 on the report from the Select Committee on Public Administration on the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, there was a prevailing consensus that the requirement that complaints be filtered by MPs should be dropped in order to improve access to the commissioner. If the Bill is passed by this House, it will provide the other place, as now composed, with the opportunity to decide—as it is of course for its Members to decide—whether the time has come to remove the filter and allow a public right of direct access. The most reliable way of testing the opinion of Members of the other place on a matter is, after all, to put it to a vote there after a well-informed debate. This House will then provide the catalyst for reform

951
ultimately to be decided upon by the democratic House of Parliament. That is why I hope that I shall not be regarded as presumptuous or disrespectful of the powers and privileges of Members of the other place in introducing the Bill.
An ongoing review—to which I am sure that the Minister will refer in his reply—of the functioning of the Office of the PCA is being carried out by the Cabinet Office, which is examining the functions and powers of all the public sector ombudsmen in the UK. The Government, in response to a Question which I tabled, previously suggested that that review would be complete by Christmas 1999. As we have entered a new century since then and no white smoke is to be observed billowing from Whitehall in that matter, I suggest that, pending the completion of the review, removing the MP filter is a modest yet significant change that should be made now. The logic of the case for removal is compelling.
The filter substantially reduces the number of complaints referred to the PCA. That is due to a number of factors, which Mr Michael Buckley, the present Parliamentary Commissioner, has identified in his memorandum submitted as part of the review of public sector ombudsmen. Many potential complainants will not use their constituency MP because of differences of political complexion. That problem is compounded by the existence of a strong ethos among MPs that they will not take complaints from the constituents of other Members even when asked. MPs vary also—as do we—in efficiency, conscientiousness and accessibility; many will be poorly informed of the remit and functions of the ombudsman. Some may discourage complainants or simply not think of the ombudsman as providing a potential solution to the problems faced by their constituents; others may refer in wholly inappropriate circumstances.
The Parliamentary Commissioner, in his evidence to the Select Committee in July 1998, observed that the 1967 Act is,
"a difficult and restrictive piece of legislation",
which is,
"hard to follow",
with the result that many busy MPs simply do not have the time adequately to vet complaints to see whether they are suitable for the ombudsman. Mr Buckley gave as examples complaints about the Oxford University Press which were mysteriously referred to his office by an MP, and a significant number of cases where correspondence ended up on his desk from complainants dissatisfied with their building societies seeking the assistance of the Building Societies Ombudsman.
One of the arguments for inserting the filter in 1967 was that MPs would act as gatekeepers, winnowing out cases which did not merit investigation by the ombudsman. The Parliamentary Commissioner's examples strongly suggest that that winnowing process is not working well. I should say that he was kind enough to meet me to discuss some of the problems before I introduced the Bill. If anything, the filter is
952
causing more confusion and administrative problems than it is solving. The most recent report of the PCA confirmed that 70 per cent of the cases referred to him were not within his jurisdiction. As he commented to the Select Committee, MPs have,
"other things to do with their time than to try to unravel the complexities of the complaints mechanism".
In addition, the formality of the procedure required, and the lack of any direct contact with the office of the PCA, is a major deterrent to ordinary members of the public.
Complainants are cut off from direct access to the PCA, and what should be a flexible and accessible remedy for complainants becomes perceived in the eyes of citizens as another bureaucratic and remote procedure. Even if someone makes a complaint and has it referred by a MP, the ombudsman continues to deal directly with the MP, and only indirectly with the complainant. For example, Section 10(1) of the 1967 Act provides that the commissioner, on the conclusion of his investigation, shall send the completed report to the MP, not to the complainant. If the report is sent by the commissioner to the complainant as well, under Section 10(5) the commissioner cannot claim privilege in respect of the contents of the report for the purposes of the law of defamation. That not only distances the complainant from the procedure but also encourages inflexible and formalistic procedures.
It is difficult to evaluate precisely how damaging the effect of the filter has been. But it is striking that in the 33 years that the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner has been in existence it has on average received fewer than 1,000 complaints per year against the whole of central government and has been able to investigate fewer than 250 complaints per year.
By way of contrast, perhaps I may give one example to serve for all. I could give other examples which are more dramatic, but I take the example of Ireland. The Irish Ombudsman, who is not subject to a parliamentary filter and who deals with a very small population of some 3.6 million, received 1,380 complaints fit for investigation in 1998 alone. When the filter in Hong Kong was removed, complaints went up fifteen-fold. Similarly, there was a large upsurge in complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman when the equivalent councillor filter was removed in the 1980s. There are many other examples. One of the Hungarian ombudsmen told me that she receives and deals with up to 30,000 complaints a year, compared with the 1,000 which Mr Buckley is dealing with.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr Buckley said that his caseload is significantly less than would probably be the case if the hindrance to free access by members of the public to his office were removed. In the other place, Mr Mark Oaten, MP, described the filter as,
"adding a blockage to the system".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/99; col. 333.]
As I said, one of the original justifications cited in 1967 for the MP filter was that it built in links with Westminster. However, removing the filter would not mean severing links with the parliamentary process or

953
with the other place. The able scrutiny of the work of the commissioner carried out by the Select Committee on Public Administration ensures and will continue to ensure that Parliament remains intimately involved with the work of the ombudsman, as does the fact that he reports to Parliament.
Another argument for the filter was the fear that the PCA might somehow act as a rival to the MPs' role in dealing with the grievances of constituents. But the commissioner is not a political figure. Independently and impartially he scrutinises administrative decisions for maladministration and acts as a safeguard for the rights of citizens. Given the complexity of some of the cases which he investigates, the commissioner provides an essential complement to the work done by MPs on behalf of their constituents.
It is plainly in the interests of good administration and the protection of citizens against the misuse of public powers if complaints of maladministration are handled wherever possible through the good offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner, rather than by means of litigation, including judicial review. Direct access would enhance significantly the practical enjoyment of those important aims of the system.
There has been a significant change in the governing culture of the UK since 1967; a welcome change reflected, among other things, by the introduction and enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. When the ombudsman system was set up, the paternal state was presumed always to know best. Now citizens are being empowered to challenge abuses and maladministration by state authorities. Removing the filter is part of that process. If citizens wish to bring a complaint, they should be entitled to go directly to the commissioner and not to have their complaints vetted for suitability by an MP. That modest reform will be entirely in line with the Government's ambitions for public services set out in Chapter 3 of the White Paper, Modernising Government. Paragraph 6 of that chapter says that the Government want public services that,
"make it easy to complain and get results when things go wrong".
In my view, there is no good reason why that modest and simple change cannot be effected now, without having to wait for wider reforms to the ombudsman system of a more complex and far-reaching nature. It is a change which is in no way dependent on wider changes to the organisation of the system or the powers of the PCA and other ombudsmen. Accordingly, I very much hope that the Minister and his colleagues will support the Bill and will not seek to delay reform with the bureaucratic argument that the time is not ripe. As F. M. Cornford famously observed in 1908:
"The Principle of Unripe Time is that people should not do at the moment what they think right at that moment, because the moment at which they think it right has not yet arrived".
I hope that the Government and the House, and in due course the other place, will support the Bill in the interests of accountable parliamentary government, good administration and the effective protection of the
954
citizen. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading and it is then passed by this House, the House will be the handmaiden for change by the other place.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
7.54 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, a few years ago the then Parliamentary Commissioner or ombudsman, Sir Cecil Clothier, referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act as "very brief and elegant". I believe that if this amending Bill were to become legislation, the legislation would be even more brief and, in my view, at least as elegant.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on introducing the Bill because it gives us an opportunity, which I believe is probably fairly rare in this House, to consider the matter of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I hope that no one in the other place considers that we are not acting properly in dealing with a subject which they may regard very much as their own.
Since 1967, I believe that the Parliamentary Commissioner has proved to be a most useful and important constitutional device for handling citizens' grievances involving maladministration by government departments and agencies of all kinds. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, it could be more useful, and he has described ways in which that could be achieved. However, the idea as such has undoubtedly been successful, not only in the other parts of the public sector which the noble Lord described. It has also been used in the devolution legislation for Scotland and Wales and it has spawned a number of other ombudsmen in the private sector, let alone the public sector. The huge Bill which this House will receive shortly—the Financial Services and Markets Bill—is a particular example. But, of course, even building societies, mentioned by the noble Lord, estate agency and even legal services have their ombudsmen. Therefore, the idea has taken off in the past 30-odd years.
With regard to grievances against government departments and agencies, justified grievances may, of course, arise not just from actions of government or government departments which clearly are illegal but from conduct and behaviour where the citizen has been treated inconsiderately or unfairly, has been misled or has had his case delayed excessively. Those are not matters which one can pin down as illegal but they are, nonetheless, justified grievances. The noble Lord did not say so, and perhaps, if one was not aware of the facts, one would not be surprised to learn that the Department of Social Security and its related agencies have overwhelmingly the largest numbers of grievances brought before the Parliamentary Commissioner.
When the 1967 Act was brought in, I suppose that it was not easy for Members of the other place to admit that the traditional methods of redress of constituents' grievances—the Parliamentary Question, correspondence between MPs and Ministers and the

955
Adjournment Debate—were inadequate. The model of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whom I suppose I might fairly describe as a kind of financial ombudsman, has been there since the previous century, supported by the powerful Public Accounts Committee. I suppose that that may have reassured MPs to some extent, but the government of the day seemed to think that further reassurance was deemed desirable and, therefore, they introduced the MP filter, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has described it.
The author of one of the main works on administrative law—well known to the noble Lord, Lord Lester—Professor Sir William Wade, said about the MP filter:
"The theory behind the requirement that complaints must be submitted through MPs was that the MP would act as a filter and eliminate futile cases. In fact, it seems that they prefer to let complaints be rejected by the Commissioner than to reject them themselves".
The annual report of the present Parliamentary Commissioner, Michael Buckley, shows—and the details are set out in the report—that something over a half of total complaints put to the Parliamentary Commissioner were outside his jurisdiction, either because the body complained about was outside his jurisdiction or because the matter complained of was not "an administrative action".
I shall not assert that MPs are blameworthy in that respect. It is quite a subtle matter to know where the jurisdiction starts and ends. But I can certainly assert, without being rude to Members of the other House, that they are not very successfully carrying out their function of acting as a filter. Surely after 30-plus years, MPs today are not so lacking in self-confidence in their significant constitutional role, and role as Members of Parliament generally, that they would wish to continue to be the sole conduit through which complaints may go from their constituents to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
In the 1970s, a modification of the procedure was introduced whereby if a complaint goes direct from the citizen to the Parliamentary Commissioner because the citizen does not realise that he is supposed to go through a Member of Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner will respond, offering to forward a suitable case to the complainant's MP so that the MP may then refer it back to him. Insisting on that round about procedure is surely not worthy of the other place. It is not worthy of Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, direct access is allowed to the Local Government Ombudsman, although it was not when the office was set up, as it is to the Health Service Commissioner and as it is in most other countries where there are parliamentary ombudsmen. It seems to me that one of the values of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is that it would enable the Parliamentary Commissioner to extend public awareness of his role. He would like to be able to create greater knowledge of his function, role and purpose in life.
It surely is the case that 1,000 or 1.500 complaints per year—and as I said, a high proportion are outside the jurisdiction—is a ludicrously low figure. It is only
956
two or three in each constituency. Perhaps I may use a phrase of the former ombudsman, Sir Cecil Clothier. What he used to call "missionary work"' would ensure that the public is much more aware of the procedure which exists, which Parliament and the taxpayer provide. Surely it is desirable that that work should be better known than it is. Therefore, I support the ideas which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, put forward.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I, too, support this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing it. The noble Lord is a remarkable champion in this House of human rights and measured law reform. His comprehensive arguments for this Bill were typical of his wide-ranging knowledge and his tireless dedication.
I speak, as he says, as chairman of Justice, whose report The Citizen and the Administration in 1961 and the acceptance of that report paved the way for the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, as he is still called, although I should prefer that the office was now designated the "ombudsman", since that is a readily understandable term.
The key to success of the ombudsman system in every area, both public and private sectors, has been because it ensures easy and speedy access to informal justice. I saw it directly in action in the time that I spent in banking. Customers with complaints against large banks would be daunted by the prospect of going to court. But the ombudsman service provided a channel by which they could be invited to ventilate their complaints when the internal mechanisms for resolving them had failed.
It is fair to say that the ombudsman system was somewhat more tolerated than rejoiced in by the bank executives, but no doubt that was a very healthy state of mind.
The system was free to the customer, legal representation was unnecessary and, while following the rules of natural justice, was informal, inquisitorial and non-adversarial. The independence of the ombudsman who, for most of my time was another member of the council of Justice, an eminent solicitor, Laurence Shurman, was unquestioned. Sometimes, as in litigation, the customer wins and sometimes loses but never once in the 10 years that I spent in the industry did I hear a single complaint that the unsuccessful customer had been deprived of his long and expensive day in court before a judge solemnly clad in wig and gown.
The system has the other advantage that the ombudsman develops a body of expertise through regular specialist involvement which judges hearing such cases occasionally, on an ad hoc basis, could not gain. The reports of the ombudsmen, too, are valuable in prompting better practice throughout the particular industry.

957
The success of the ombudsman approach to providing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is the extent to which it has been so widely adopted across the public and private sectors. Indeed, to speak at the Annual Conference of Ombudsmen is to speak now to several hundred distinguished people, mostly lawyers, who are gathered together in the public service.
But the ombudsman scheme can always be improved and, in that respect, the proposals for the financial sector provide a useful pointer. Through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the various separate schemes within the financial markets will be brought together under a chief ombudsman, supported by sectoral ombudsmen dealing with banking, insurance and other aspects of financial services. In the same way, Justice considers that there would be merit in bringing together the parliamentary, health and local government ombudsmen in one unified scheme or, at any rate, on a more collegiate basis. Precisely because of the complexity of modern society, it can be unclear—and this was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—to which public sector ombudsman they should take their complaint. Indeed, many potential complaints involve more than one department of central and local government. I hope that that suggestion might find favour when the outcome of the review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester referred, is known.
But the purpose of this Bill is more modest. It is a discrete purpose and does not require us to await wider-ranging reform. But more modest as it is, it is of high importance for the ombudsmen schemes are about access to justice and the parliamentary filter is now, of its nature, a barrier and distances the complainant from the ombudsman. It is even more of a barrier where it operates haphazardly but inconsistently. It was no doubt understandable that it should be introduced when this was a new and novel jurisdiction borrowed from Scandinavian countries and regarded as a precaution which would allow the system to be tested in action and no doubt to avoid the risk of abuse and the opening of those floodgates which is so feared by some whenever beneficent law reform is introduced.
After 20 years, the time has come to rid ourselves of the filter and the barrier, which is counterproductive where we seek easy access to justice. I hope that the Bill will go forward and be given time in the other place, so that those who operate the filter can determine whether they agree it should be kept or take the view that it can be dispensed with—that the citizen should trusted to have direct access to the ombudsman and the ombudsman should be trusted to respond directly to the citizen.
8.10 pm
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on increasing the debt that the House already owes to him by introducing this Bill.
958
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. If it appears that this debate is in the nature of a justice takeover, that is no mystery—for reasons already given. On the last occasion that my noble friend Lord Borrie and I participated in the same debate, we had the misfortune to disagree. It is a great pleasure to observe that tonight, harmony is totally restored and I respectfully endorse every word that my noble friend said.
We have had four present or future practising lawyers arguing for an extension of an alternative dispute resolution procedure. Perhaps some of our noble colleagues may wish to take note. For reasons already given, there is general agreement that the office of ombudsman has fully justified the experiment. There are now numerous ombudsmen in the public and private sectors and the British and Irish Ombudsmen's Association has been effective in disseminating the growing experience of how ombudsmen can operate in various circumstances.
I have served as an ombudsman for the Mirror Group of newspapers and one of the major lessons I learnt was that there is no single pattern. Even among press ombudsmen, no two seem to work exactly the same way. One advantage of the concept is how flexible it can be in responding to various situations and needs. It has the capacity to expand wherever a need is recognised.
Lord Woolf, in his report, Access to Justice, pointed out that here was an alternative procedure for dispute resolution. It should gladden the heart of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the problem we have all spent so much time discussing of how to fund legal services might be alleviated if greater use were made of the ombudsman procedures. Lord Woolf recommended a more flexible system of referrals between the courts and the appropriate ombudsmen. I hope that we may see greater advantage taken of the opportunities that that offers.
I was privileged to participate in an international conference on administrative justice at Bristol University in November 1997, with the encouragement and assistance of the Lord Chancellor's Department and which was the brainchild of Professor Martin Partington. The lessons that emerged are still being digested but I recommend the book based on some of the papers, Criminal Justice in the 21st Century. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest as a unpaid contributor. One of the lessons was the range of possibilities of dispute resolutions made available through ombudsman procedures.
I understand why it was felt initially that a filter was necessary. As my noble friend observed, there was a fear that the Parliamentary Commissioner would be submerged by complaints—many of them time consuming and outside his remit. That has not happened. In his evidence to the Select Committee, the then commissioner, Mr. William Reid, made clear that he did not fear the removal of the filter and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, the present commissioner, Mr. Michael Buckley—with whom

959
I have also had the opportunity to discuss some of these matters—holds a similar view. Neither fear an extension of the volume of work likely to fall upon the ombudsman. Unlike so many public officials and bodies whose workloads do outstrip their resources, sometimes to the point of crisis, that concern was misconceived.
One reason is that the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner is not as widely known as it ought to be. The proposal will be effective only if the possibility of a reference is much more widely publicised. Even among Members of Parliament, the possibility of resolving problems by the ombudsman procedure does not always come to mind. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, the more widely the procedure is used, the more likely its existence is likely to be known.
Sometimes, one or two Members of Parliament may take an eccentric 'view. I remember Sir William Reid telling the story of receiving from an MP who was unhappy at one of his reports a letter stating, "I shan't refer any more cases to you". He commented that it would have been more tolerable if some other MP could have taken up the cases concerned and referred them—but one of the rules that MPs observe is about interfering in another's constituency.
The second reason it was thought necessary to insert the filter was that at the time of the original Act, this country had no experience of such a procedure. There was suspicion of any dispute resolution process that might compete with the courts and in some way undermine the rule of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, it was even feared that it might undermine the sovereignty of Parliament if MPs were not accorded a veto.
My impression of the present House of Commons accords with that of the noble Lord. Members of the other place are concerned not with retaining power in their own hands but with redressing the grievances of their constituents. The anxiety belongs to the philosophy expressed in 1929 by Lord Hewitt in The New Despotism. It was thought to favour droit administratif and was not the British way of doing things. Now, the concept of a seamless web of administrative justice—including judicial review and other remedies in the courts, together with other extracurial forms of dispute resolution—is totally accepted. In my experience, judges and Members of Parliament see n o danger of competition. Our democracy is not so perfect that any one institution should claim a monopoly in redressing grievances.
The administrative bureaucracy is not always right. Anyone who perceives that as criticism fails to understand the universality of human error. We all acknowledge that where a decision has the capacity to inflict unfairness on an individual. it should be possible to look al it again and find redress without necessarily persuading a politician that an unfairness has been perpetrated. That is what the expertise of the Parliamentary Commissioner is for and it would be a wasted resource if we fail to make full use of it.
8.20 p.m
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, if I was a barrister we would have what is known in cards as "a running flush", but I must apologise and say that I am only a layman in these matters.
However, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has introduced the Bill because I believe he has exposed an Achilles' heel for which I have been looking for some time. From time to time he and I have exchanged words in the Chamber over his Question of the espousal of the Human Rights Bill. I have referred to his associations with Charter 88 and the "chattering classes", although I believe that that phrase has now been superseded by "woolly Liberals".
In the past I have contested his view that there is a great groundswell for constitutional change in this country. I believe that we are now here on another one of these "hypes" and that there is not the substantial crying out for change which people say there is. I do not even think that it is a modest, practical reform; it has far-reaching consequences.
The noble Lord mentioned 1993, which is the year in which he came to this Chamber. He soon became associated with Questions. On 4th February 1995 the Guardian referred to an inquiry being told that four Peers took cash for questions. That was alleged by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I do not believe that he gave further evidence to substantiate that, although he received a testimonial in the same article in the Guardian which stated:
"he is wise and fair-minded as befits a counsel of mine".
That was stated by Mr al-Fayed.
I asked the Library about the record of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in asking Questions and was told that the total number of all Questions asked in the House of Lords by the noble Lord, written or oral, logged on the parliamentary database (POLIS) is 897. If all noble Lords asked that number of Questions, the system would undoubtedly break down. The noble Lord only thrives on the restraint of others. That is precisely the problem which I believe we have with this Bill.
Anybody who has been elected knows that they receive complaints.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is not the first time that he has done what he is now doing. Perhaps I may say to the House and to the noble Lord that if he is to make a personal attack upon me, it would be courteous to give me notice beforehand so that I am able to deal with it in that way. This is about the fourth time this has happened. I do not believe that in this House we normally adopt the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, this is not the first time I have been referred to as Senator Joe McCarthy from that source. However, no doubt that intervention will save the noble Lord from sending me

961
a letter, as he did on a previous occasion, stating that my remarks were defamatory. It is very good to dish it out but sometimes it has to be taken as well.
If one is elected, one receives complaints. When I was a Member of another place I received various complaints from various people. Anybody who has been down there knows that there is a hard core of people who come back time after time. Some of the files which I accumulated were well over an inch thick. Occasionally I would say to those people, who became very good friends of mine because I saw them on such a regular basis, "Tell me what you would do with your life if we cleared up this complaint?" They looked bemused and bewildered. I do not believe that they had ever considered what life would be like without such a grievance to take out and burnish up.
I believe that there is a necessity for the MP to filter off his complaints. When this legislation was first passed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as he now is, said in the other place that a very large number of complaints which he had come across in terms of his research for the Bill were about local government. The MP can put those complaints to local government. He can often feed such complaints to the right source. That is essential; otherwise the system would become totally clogged. I do not care what happens in other countries. We live in this country. This is our country and we have to judge matters as they are here.
I also believe that if people were turned down by the ombudsman there would be frustration. There is a possibility of malice and of playing off one Member of Parliament against another. A provision was introduced by the Lord President, who stated that it was a further provision to enable Members of Parliament to be more effective. He said:
"this knowledge should surely put heart into those back benchers who feel they count for not much more than Lobby fodder",—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/66; col. 43.]
and that there is the ombudsman to go to.
We must consider this carefully before we are carried away on another pseudo-populist crusade which will create a great deal more harm than good.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in May 1998 I attended a conference in Addis Ababa on human rights commissions and the ombudsman. The Ethiopians had gathered together people from some 50 or 60 countries with these institutions as part of their mechanisms for redressing citizens' grievances. Not one of the speakers there, distinguished ombudsmen, heads of human rights commissions, or lay people with experience in these fields recommended that the Ethiopians should introduce a filter, such as we had in our legislation in 1967. As it happens, I was present at Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill in 1967. I intervened a couple of times in other people's speeches, though I did not say anything substantive myself.
962
I remember that Dick Crossman felt it necessary to interpose the MP between the complainant and the PCA as a filter, as has been said, and that he would theoretically weed out the complaints that were frivolous or ill-founded. In those days an MP was considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, would presumably still like him to be, the main channel of complaint from citizens not just about maladministration but about anything else under the sun which they felt needed an airing. So, Mr Crossman was careful to present the idea of a PCA as an enhancement to the role of the MP and an additional weapon in the armoury of the Back-Bencher in dealing with the executive. He stated:
"we have decided unequivocally that the Parliamentary Commissioner must remain permanently a servant of the House, and in order to emphasise this we have laid it down that the initiation of grievances must permanently reside in back-bench MPs".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/66; col. 49.]
That seems rather quaint today because we have this host of other institutions through which aggrieved members of the public can take up their complaints directly, including local government as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. They do not have to go through an MP; they can go directly to the commission concerned and to many other ombudsmen and institutions with similar powers, all of which can be accessed directly.
In my day, in the other place I used to see something like 600 people a year at my advice bureau and dealt with 3,000 to 4,000 letters in a year. We were not equipped to do that in the same way as Members in another place are today. However, it would have been extremely difficult to act as an intelligent filter in the cases which people requested to be submitted to the ombudsman. Not many of us would have been properly equipped to make the judgment on whether a citizen had made out a case which properly fell to be dealt with by the ombudsman. So, the question of whether to refer a complaint to the PCA having been left entirely to our discretion, I believe that most of us did as has been suggested; that is, left the final decision to the PCA on whether a case fell within his remit. That was probably why so many of the cases that landed on his desk, and still do so, turned out to be for other ombudsmen or not to be investigated by an ombudsman at all.
It was mentioned that when the councillor filter was removed and people were allowed to complain directly to local administrations in 1988, the number of complaints increased sharply—I believe by 40 per cent. That is a measure of the inhibition which stopped people from using this mechanism. I hope that much the same may happen when this Bill is passed; that is, that we open up this channel of communication and allow many people, whose complaints have not been properly submitted to the ombudsman in the past, to formulate their complaints and have them properly considered.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I can be brief on behalf of the Opposition The noble Lord, Lord Lester, with characteristic resourcefulness, introduced a Bill on an important aspect of our constitution.
I suppose the real reason for the introduction of an ombudsman in 1967 was the growing perception by politicians from all parties that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility was no longer working. On the one hand, where issues of great political importance were concerned, a Minister under threat would be rallied round by the rest of the Cabinet. On the other hand, matters not regarded as being of particular political note were thought too trivial to bother about.
So the interesting and extremely helpful initiative of the Parliamentary Commissioner was introduced. But at that time the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was powerful enough to make the then elected Parliament in Westminster keep a filter; in a way to foster the illusion that Parliament was still in charge of the process.
Everybody who has spoken tonight, with perhaps one exception, agrees that the Parliamentary Commissioner has played a most important part in protecting the rights of individuals in the succeeding 30 years. I wonder, however, whether his importance is as great as it used to be.
For one thing, the constitutional context in which the Parliamentary Commissioner operates has been transformed. For example, in 1967 judicial review was still in its infancy. Now it plays a fundamental role in the protection of citizens' rights and its weapons intrude increasingly into the territory which was formerly the commissioner's territory.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and many other noble and learned and noble Lords pointed out, there have grown up over the past decade and a half a number of specialised ombudsmen to whom citizens have direct access and whose constitution is quite independent of another place. Government departments have also established their own individual complaints' procedures, which seem to me in most cases to be working well. Finally, the sovereignty of your Lordships' House and another place has to some degree been qualified by the emergence of other parliaments and assemblies in the United Kingdom.
All these developments provide alternative access for the citizen to obtain redress for wrongs done to him or her. I have also noticed that, since 1992, the speed at which the Parliamentary Commissioner reaches a conclusion about matters that are put to him has slowed down remarkably and rather distressingly. Now it takes on average nearly two years to resolve a matter brought before him, whereas in the early 1990s it took only one year. Removing the filter will not solve that problem; something else needs to be done in addition to removing the filter to improve the performance of the commissioner.
964
I do not know whether it is due to a lack of resources or an over-elaborate procedure, but the primary object in 1967 of the Parliamentary Commissioner was to produce a procedure which was speedy, straightforward and easily understood by the citizen. In addition to all the other matters we are looking at, we should be asking questions about that as well.
Moreover, it does not follow that, if we remove the parliamentary filter, we will remove all the problems connected with filtering. The main reason why the filter does not work as well as it ought to at the level of Member of Parliament is because most Members of Parliament like to be on the right side of their constituents; some, dare I say it, even like to tell the constituents what they feel the constituents want to hear. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that quite a high percentage of cases that reach the ombudsman have to be filtered out at that stage. But the filtering process will still have to be conducted even without the Member of Parliament when citizens go directly to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I hope, therefore, that when this Bill reaches another place, consideration of the filter will be seen in a wider context and not just the specific motivation of the Member of Parliament. The Opposition are pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, took this initiative. We look forward to seeing how the Bill progresses when it gets to another place.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I respond to this interesting debate in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may unfortunately regard as an unhelpful way. The following points emerge from the debate.
First, everybody agrees that the ombudsman procedure is a good thing because it helps the citizen. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, the parliamentary ombudsman was introduced, as the right honourable Dick Crossman said at the time, as an "adjunct" to the MP's powers to help his constituents or to help people generally on the basis that if the MP could not make headway through correspondence or other traditional means, he could then resort to the ombudsman.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, read an extract from the right honourable Member's speech in which he said that the ombudsman was to reside "permanently" in the House of Commons. So we have something created explicitly on the basis that he is to reside in the House of Commons. One can see the arguments for that. It would mean that the MP would continue to have his role as championing the constituent; he would be constantly informed as to what was happening. In effect, what the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposes is that that basis be now taken away. I accept that there may well be good reasons for that to be done, but I question whether or not it is appropriate for this House to initiate that procedure rather than the other place where the ombudsman, to quote the promoter of the Bill, "permanently" resides.

965
The second point that emerges is that everybody agrees—indeed, it is put forward as a reason for the change—that the effect is likely to increase substantially the number of cases that will come before the parliamentary ombudsman. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the fact that when the local government ombudsman councillor filter was removed, the increase in workload was around 44 per cent. That is said to be a good thing. No doubt in some circumstances it would be a good thing, but perhaps I can draw noble Lords' attention to two facts.
The procedure of the parliamentary ombudsman is a cumbersome business. In effect, it is prescribed by statute and involves three stages. First, the parliamentary ombudsman has to decide whether or not he can consider the complaint. Secondly, he must pass the complaint to the relevant department, which then considers the matter. Thirdly, once he has the department's response, the parliamentary ombudsman investigates the matter himself.
At the first stage, the parliamentary ombudsman has the option of deciding not to investigate. But, in statutory terms, he can either decide not to investigate or have a full-blown investigation. It is quite difficult for him to do something in between. He does his best to think of ways round that restriction, but it is a restrictive process. The idea that one would increase his workload by 44 per cent, without also looking at the manner in which he carries out his procedures, seems a very bad way to consider whether or not to change the position in relation to ombudsmen. I believe that that echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; namely, that one should look at it more in the round rather than simply looking at this one aspect, which was beguilingly put by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, it is impractical to look at it in isolation from the other aspects of what the ombudsman does.
The third issue is what process is presently underway in order to see what should happen to the ombudsmen. In October 1998, the ombudsmen themselves—not all of them, but perhaps one could say collectively "an omnibus" of ombudsmen—suggested that there should be a review of their procedures. They raised specifically the issue of the MP's filter and issues about how their procedures could be improved. In response, and as part of the "modernising government" agenda, the Government set up a review of the procedures for ombudsmen. That review is considering the MP's filter and what improvements in procedure can take place, as well as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about whether there should be a commission or collegiate approach to the activities of ombudsmen to get round the wearisome issues of jurisdiction.
Therefore, one has an ombudsman who is "permanently" resident in the House of Commons; one has a Bill here which proposes something which will increase the workload, without making any changes in procedure; and one has an on-going process in which these very issues are being considered. Perhaps I may make one further point in relation to the
966
procedural issue. It presently takes between 10 and 11 months to deal with one complaint to the ombudsman. I dread to think how long it would take if the workload were to increase by 44 per cent.
For the reasons that I have indicated, the Government cannot support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord this evening. In the light of the points that I have made, I earnestly suggest to the noble Lord that he considers whether or not the appropriate course would be to withdraw his Bill and await the results of the review to which I referred. At that time the matter could be considered in the light of a whole series of representations.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, whose speeches always remind me of the reasons why I parted company with old Labour and why I am so glad that New Labour stands for a wholly different tradition. No one has advanced any good reason for retaining the filter. Indeed, noble Lords from all sides of the House—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—have given a series of powerful reasons, in addition to those that I gave, as to why the filter should be removed.
Without singling out any speaker in particular, perhaps I may say that I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was able to speak. He has been a champion of consumer interests since I was first called to the Bar. Hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, as a former Solicitor-General and a former Member of Parliament and, indeed, from my noble friend Lord Avebury, who is another former Member of Parliament (unlike the Minister and myself who have no experience of the other place), gives me a little more confidence that what I am doing does not involve lèse-majesté as far as concerns the other place.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if one is to free the parliamentary ombudsman—indeed, that is a much better title, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, said, than Parliamentary Commissioner—of this unnecessary fetter, one consequence will be the need to give him more resources. Anyone who visits his offices will realise the pitiful lack of resources with which he has to work. It is no wonder that it takes so long to deal with cases. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying that in a sense the Government are self-interested in the matter. I say that because the whole purpose of the ombudsman is to act as a watchdog for the citizen against the misuse of power in a non-legal sense by Ministers, government departments and public authorities.
If the Minister were in opposition, I am sure that he would realise the force of what I am saying. Of course it is convenient for Ministers to have a rusty machine that takes a long time and does not deal very effectively with citizens' complaints. However, I know that this Government do not take refuge in that kind of argument based on administrative convenience.

967
The Minister said that my Bill would not change the procedure, but that is not correct. One of the major changes Is that it would remove the procedural bar. As a consequence, the ombudsman, with more resources, would be able to act as ombudsmen do across the Commonwealth. t is quite absurd that we, the country which is the mother of Parliament, should now be lagging behind countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and others across the Commonwealth, as well as those in new and old Europe—
Lord Avebury: Malawi!
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend suggests Malawi, but perhaps not.
I thought both long and hard about whether to succumb to the vast charm and blandishments of the Minister and withdraw the Bill. I would have done so if the noble and learned Lord had given any indication that the Government were willing to take the initiative and liberate the other place, which they control with a commanding majority, by introducing a measure that would remove this unnecessary fetter. However, we have heard that there is a review; that we should wait for the wider considerations and the whole
968
architecture of ombudsmen to be looked at and then perhaps at that stage one may get around to this rather simple reform.
I do not think it constitutionally inappropriate for this Chamber to act as the subordinate hand-maiden to the other Chamber. It is very hard for Members of the other place to get time for Private Members' Bills. If the Government block reforms by inaction, it is impossible for any reform to take place in the other place. We have an opportunity in this House simply to pass a modest measure and then give Members of another place the opportunity to consider the matter and vote upon it. If they lack confidence in allowing the citizen to have direct access and if they insist upon being the exclusive conduit, they will take the consequences with their constituents in due course. That is their entitlement. However, if they feel that the time has come to act in partnership with the citizens of this country by using the ombudsman in a better way, that again is a decision for them to take.
Having thought about it, I have decided to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.

  Death Rates
  Death Rates
  Government Information and Communication Service
  Government Information and Communication Service
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  House of Lords. Reform: Royal Commission Report
  House of Lords. Reform: Royal Commission Report
  Sexual Orientation: Anti-discrimination Code of Practice
  Sexual Orientation: Anti-discrimination Code of Practice
  Sex Offences and Penalties: Review
  Sex Offences and Penalties: Review
  Either-way Cases Committed to Crown Court
  Either-way Cases Committed to Crown Court
  Mike Tyson
  Mike Tyson
  Old Palace Yard Restoration Scheme
  Old Palace Yard Restoration Scheme
  House of Lords Website: Select Committee Report Hits
  House of Lords Website: Select Committee Report Hits
  Tourist-related Industries: Fall in Number of Self-employed Jobs
  Tourist-related Industries: Fall in Number of Self-employed Jobs
  Gulf Veterans: Human Tissue Act 1961
  Gulf Veterans: Human Tissue Act 1961