Sitting of 18 January 2000

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

  UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Monday 24 January at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Turkey
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on Turkey's EU candidature status. [R][104187]
    Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Keith Vaz): We welcome the Helsinki European Council's decision that Turkey is a candidate for EU accession. Turkey is an important partner for Britain and the EU, a NATO ally which provided vital support in the Gulf and Kosovo crises, and a major market for UK exporters. The UK has been working hard for a more constructive relationship between the EU and Turkey. We have now secured that. Turkey will enjoy all the benefits of other candidates, including financial assistance. For its part, Turkey must meet the same criteria for accession as other candidates. In particular, it will need to improve its record on human rights and protection of minorities before accession negotiations can begin.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that Turkey's candidature status represents a historical juncture for Turkey and the EU? Does he also agree that this valued ally and important geo-political country will now face both challenges and opportunities, and that it will have to deal sensitively with both internal issues and external perceptions? Will he join me in welcoming Mr. Ecevit's decision to await the views of the European Court of Human Rights before referring the case of Abdullah Ocalan to his Parliament?
    Mr. Vaz: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does as chairman of the British-Turkey parliamentary
    668
    group, which has been helpful in cementing relationships between our countries. He is right to say that this is a historic moment for Turkey. We were delighted that it achieved candidate status without conditions. He is also right that it is important that Turkey considers its human rights record. The decisions to refer the case of Mr. Ocalan to the European Court of Human Rights and to suspend the death penalty are welcome, and we hope that the Turkish Government will respect the court's decision.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: What positive help do the Government intend to give Turkey to help with the reforms necessary for accession negotiations to begin?
    Mr. Vaz: Turkey will get all the support that it needs, as will all applicant candidates. At the moment, we give 375 million euros through the European Union's NEDA programme. We also intend to ensure that we help Turkey to prioritise the various difficulties that it will face in the future, so that it can begin its negotiations as soon as it meets the Copenhagen criteria on political and economic issues.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will be well aware that many people are deeply concerned about the news of Turkey's candidature, given the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, the abuse of human rights in Turkey and the situation of the Kurdish people. Will he assure the House that the British Government will spend no further money on the Ilusu dam project until a full environmental impact assessment has been made of the entire project and consideration has been given to the effects on the villagers in the area and on the Kurdish people whose land is about to be flooded for the benefit of big business—apparently supported by several western Governments?
    Mr. Vaz: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in those matters. He is a passionate supporter of the Kurdish people and he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he is minded to grant export credit to Balfour Beatty, provided that various assurances—such as those my hon. Friend mentioned—are met. When those assurances are forthcoming, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make the right decision.

    EU Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the next European Union intergovernmental conference. [104189]
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the plans to extend qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference. [104199]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government argued successfully at Helsinki for an IGC focused on enlargement with a target of completion by the end of the year. I outlined the Government's objectives in detail to the House on 1 December. We place particular importance on securing a shift in the weighting of votes within the Council of Ministers to reflect more fairly the

    669
    population of the larger countries such as ourselves. The Government believe that key matters of national interest are better resolved by unanimity, but where majority voting may help to overcome obstacles to reform it could be in Britain's interest to support it.
    Enlargement may nearly double the number of member states of the European Union. All Members of the House who support enlargement will want the IGC to reach agreement enabling Europe to open its doors to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that answer. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm precisely the areas in which he intends to sign up to qualified majority voting where it does not apply at the moment? Why cannot he embrace the Conservative vision of a more flexible and outward-looking Europe, which is in tune with the views of the great majority of the British people?
    Mr. Cook: If I were to embrace the Conservative vision, I should find myself in opposition, as that vision was rejected by the British people at the last election.
    As I have said often before, and am happy to repeat to the House today, there are matters that we consider to be off limits for majority voting. They include border controls, defence, taxation, social security, own resources matters, and treaty amendments. There may well be other occasions when it could be in our interests to secure majority voting—such as reform of the European Court of Justice, for example. Other member states appear before the court much more often than Britain does, so it could well be in our interests to establish procedures that will enable us to get justice faster against other member states.
    Mr. Robertson: Is not the alternative to extending qualified majority voting for the European Union to engage in fewer matters and to interfere in fewer areas of our national life? Does the Secretary of State recall that the previous Labour Government promised that the British Minister would always have a veto, and that it was only on that basis that the British people ever agreed to be members of the European Union in the first place?
    Mr. Cook: Actually, the rate at which directives are issued from Brussels has slackened off since the height of the single market, when the Conservative party was in office. In that period, the then Conservative Government agreed the extension of majority voting in 42 different articles of European Union affairs—the largest expansion in the use of majority voting in the EU's history.
    I have no quarrel with that, as the previous Conservative Government were right to act in that way. Any rational member state would have agreed to do so. However, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded by what I have said, judging by the speech that he made last year, in which he asked whether the European Union was the new Soviet Union. The answer that he appeared to give to that question was yes.
    Ann Clwyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that arms sales should be a matter for qualified majority voting in the European Union? It appears that the EU's decision to lift the embargo on arms sales to Indonesia was not unanimous. Would not that be a proper
    670
    subject for discussion at the next inter-governmental conference, especially as it is known that the military in Indonesia are still responsible for human rights abuses in many provinces, such as Aceh, Irian Jaya and the Spice islands? In addition, British-made equipment has been used in the Moluccas in the past two weeks. Is not the matter of arms sales a proper subject for discussion and for qualified majority voting?
    Mr. Cook: I have just told the House that we would not accept majority voting in defence matters. I should be in some difficulty if I were to accept an obligation to abide by an arms embargo on the basis of a majority vote. The arms embargo on Indonesia was introduced on British recommendation and with our strong support. At the time, major atrocities were being committed in East Timor and Jakarta had not respected the outcome of the referendum in East Timor. Both problems have been remedied. East Timor is currently administered by the United Nations, and the United Nations' mandated force guarantees peace there. In addition, the new Government in Indonesia have accepted that East Timor must become an independent state.
    I welcome the democratic process that has resulted in a new democratic presence in Indonesia. I welcome especially the changes that have been made to bring the army under control, and the appointment of Indonesia's first-ever civilian minister of defence. Nevertheless, we made it clear last week in Brussels that we want the lifting of the embargo to remain under continual review. In the event of a return to the sort of disturbances that occurred in East Timor, we would want the embargo to be reimposed.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the extension of qualified majority voting could be to our advantage in connection with a number of issues to do with Gibraltar? At present, Spain is blocking the extension to Gibraltar of a number of measures that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Given that Conservative Members generally like to present themselves as great defenders of Gibraltar, is my right hon. Friend surprised that, in this instance, they refuse to support a measure that would be greatly to the advantage of Gibraltarians?
    Mr. Cook: I am very glad that my hon. Friend was able to get the second part of her question in. She gives a perfectly good example of how majority voting can be in our interest. The problem with the veto that has occurred on some occasions has been to do not with the issue being voted on, but with the linkage made by one member state to another issue that has nothing at all to do with the matter under consideration.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), does the Secretary of State remember that, last December, he failed to distance himself from the Labour MEPs who voted in favour of putting flexibility on the intergovernmental conference agenda? Will the right hon. Gentleman now distance himself from Simon Murphy, the third Labour leader of the MEPs in the last year and a so-called "Blairite", who voted in favour of a resolution extending qualified

    671
    majority voting to certain aspects of taxation? Last month, Mr. Murphy voted in favour of a resolution deploring the "lack of political vision" displayed by leaders at Helsinki, of whom the Prime Minister is presumably one, and complaining that the IGC agenda was "inadequate". Alternatively, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that it is yet another example of Labour keeping quiet in Britain but voting in favour of deeper integration in Brussels?
    Mr. Cook: I have been plain to the House, and I have been plain everywhere in Britain, on what our objectives at the IGC will be. I have stated those objectives again today, and they are not changed by any debate in the European Parliament. However, I am happy to share common cause with parties in developing a constructive engagement in Europe with Simon Hughes and the other Labour MEPs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Simon Murphy"]—him as well—on that point.
    The hon. Gentleman should explain to the House why six Tory MEPs have now formed common cause with the UK Independence party, which is committed to withdrawal from the European Union. Is he content to have people in his party and standing for his party committed to a platform of withdrawal from the European Union?
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the two biggest expansions of qualified majority voting in the European Union took place under the regimes of Mrs. Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)? Does he agree that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that one supports the expansion of the European Union while refusing to countenance an expansion in qualified majority voting?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the point. If we could retain the British veto while everybody else lost theirs, it might be a fair trade-off. Conservative Members are campaigning not only to keep a British veto on everything but to keep a Belgian, a Dutch and a German veto and, after enlargement, to keep a Slovak veto and a Cyprus veto as well. In those circumstances, it may be difficult to get through some decisions that are very important to Britain's national interests.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his recent interventions on Europe, particularly with regard to monetary union? Will he endorse the conclusion of the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that in its first year of operation, the euro was a considerable success and that we should be part of the system soon?
    Mr. Cook: Congratulations from any quarters are always welcome and happily received. However, I repeat that the Government's position is well known: we will decide whether to join the European single currency on the basis of the tests of economic conditions and whether joining would be in the interests of the British people. The Conservative party has said that, even if it was in Britain's economic interests, it would not join, nor would it agree, as we would, that the British people should decide for
    672
    themselves. The Conservative party would deny the British people a referendum. With that sharp contrast in mind, I am happy to fight the next election on that issue.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Geraint Davies: If he will make a statement on progress towards restoring a democratic Government in Pakistan. [104190]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We continue to press General Musharraf for progress towards the restoration of democracy. Last week, Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of Defence Staff, took a strong message from the Prime Minister to the military regime seeking a route-map to the restoration of democracy. We look to General Musharraf to fulfil his commitment to prepare Pakistan for a civilian, democratic Government.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many in the Pakistani community, particularly in Croydon, are fairly happy about the military coup in Pakistan, which they regard as a necessary condition of getting rid of bad governance and bringing about stability? They also welcome the announcement by the new regime of local government elections. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that announcement and, given Britain's wealth of experience in local government, will he give an idea of the support that we might give to enable successful, democratic and blossoming local government in Pakistan?
    Mr. Cook: We have already said that we are willing to provide technical assistance to help Pakistan return to a credible and fair form of democracy. It would be welcome if General Musharraf proceeded with his commitment to local democracy, and the Government would be happy to consider any bona fide request for help. At the same time, however, and while we do not call for the restoration of the status quo in the form of the Sharif Government, we cannot condone a military coup. That would not be welcome to our many friends around the world who are determined to retain civilian democratic government.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Government of Pakistan that any attempt to bring the former Prime Minister to trial will be viewed with great suspicion and dismay? When the matter is next discussed by Commonwealth heads of Government, will the right hon. Gentleman make the point to some of them—for example, Mr. Mugabe of Zimbabwe—that if they put their own houses in order, they would have much more plausibility on this matter?
    Mr. Cook: We would all deplore a show trial of the former Prime Minister. Mr. Sharif and others are, of course, covered by the law, and they can therefore be fairly brought to court if they have committed a bona fide breach of the law. The circumstances around the abandonment of the first attempt at a trial of Mr. Sharif were of some concern, and we shall continue to press

    673
    Mr. Musharraf's Government fully to recognise the rights of the former Prime Minister and the others on trial with him.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: We all want a return to democracy in Pakistan as soon as possible, and the previous Government of Pakistan were not acceptable and had many failings. What steps has General Musharraf announced to ensure a return to normality? What support can we give to ensure that that objective is achieved as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Cook: We very much welcome General Musharraf's repeated commitments to a return to democracy and his specific commitment to local elections. We await with keen anticipation the details of how and when those commitments will be fulfilled. General Sir Charles Guthrie went to Pakistan last week and pressed the Government to produce both a route to democracy and a date by which we might expect some of the announced measures to occur. We await the return of democracy, both on the map and the calendar, and I hope that General Musharraf will meet his own commitment in the near future.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I undertake to pass on the Foreign Secretary's invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? Do we not need real and credible evidence of measurable progress in the restoration of democratic government to Pakistan and in the recognition of human rights before there can be any question of our raising the suspension of arms sales to that country? Should not similar principles lie behind our relations with other countries, particularly East Timor? What evidence is there of the achievement of stability, democratic government and universal recognition of human rights in that country?
    Mr. Cook: East Timor is entirely administered by the United Nations and a security force is present to ensure that stability is maintained. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to refer to Indonesia, I am happy to respond in that spirit. There has been progress towards a democratic Government in that country, including election of the first democratically chosen president and appointment of the first human rights minister, who, because of what he has said in the past on human rights, has some credibility. The Indonesian Cabinet is also a genuine attempt at achieving a better balance of representation across Indonesia.
    It is early days yet, and we shall continue closely to review the situation. In Brussels last week, we made it clear that if there were a return to the kind of episodes seen in East Timor, there would be a case for reconsidering the arms embargo. I stress that it is not the case, as has been suggested, that there are no limits on arms sales to Indonesia. As before, any sale will be judged fully against our criteria, and we approved only £2 million worth of licences for new equipment last year.
    Mr. Ann Cryer: When my right hon. Friend holds discussions with the Pakistani Government on the return to democracy in that country, will he also
    674
    have a word about the human rights of women, especially in regard to last year's Amnesty International report on so-called "honour killings"?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have reflected on the honour killings in several representations that we made to Pakistan under its previous regime, and for some time. It will continue to be a major issue of concern in our dealings with that country.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not the sad truth that, whether Pakistan's Government have been military or democratic, it has been one of the most corrupt countries in the world? It has been linked, as a state sponsor, to terrorism in Kashmir; it is a source of the drugs trade, as well as being a route for the hard drugs trade in this country; it has co-operated with North Korea on missile and nuclear technology; and it has been prey to Islamic extremism.
    Set against that, the coming or going of a military Government in Pakistan is perhaps less important than it would be elsewhere. Should not the policy of our Government be more determined by those very serious factors, which affect our interests as well as those of our partners and allies, before we deal with the nature of the Government of Pakistan? Surely, those fundamental problems of Pakistan must be sorted out first.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of very important issues, which are indeed of concern to the Government. However, in many cases, the conduct of the Pakistan military has been much at the forefront of matters of concern. A military regime is not more likely to address those concerns than were past Governments.
    As for the visit last week, I report to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we did make a particular point of including in our message that we expect Pakistan to abide by its international obligations to fight international terrorism. We shall watch events closely in the coming months.

    Drugs Trade
    Mr. Frank Roy: What action his Department has taken to combat the drugs trade, with particular reference to Latin America. [104191]
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What recent discussion he has had with the US Government with regard to the drugs trade involving Colombia. [104197]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Foreign Office co-ordinates the United Kingdom's international counter-drugs activities. We attach importance to the effective engagement of all Departments and agencies concerned—including the intelligence agencies—in combating the drugs trade. During the financial year 1998–99, the Foreign Office spent £5.9 million on projects in support of the UK drugs strategy. On 5 January, we announced a contribution of £2.286 million towards projects under the

    675
    United Nations international drug control programme concerning Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Romania and Macedonia.
    Mr. Roy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that banks should do everything in their power to reveal where the criminal elements—the drugs barons of Latin America and, indeed, throughout the world—stow their criminal money? Will he support moves to ensure that off-shore tax havens are far more transparent?
    Mr. Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend. I assure him that the UK, in all dealings and discussions with our colleagues abroad, ensures that the issue is raised. We believe that there should be transparency and international co-operation, and that those who profit from illegal trafficking of drugs ought to be exposed. That is why we are leading members of the global programme on trafficking and of the financial action task force on money laundering. We believe that that is the only way to combat the hiding of the proceeds of crime.
    Mr. Goggins: Last Tuesday, President Clinton announced a $1.3 billion aid programme for Colombia—most of it military aid. Although effective action on drugs is essential, does my hon. Friend agree that military aid alone is not enough? Will he encourage the United States to work with the Colombian Government to strengthen human rights in Colombia, and to secure the peace that alone can defeat the drugs barons whose filthy money currently funds the civil war in that country?
    Mr. Vaz: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters and that he visited Colombia last year. He is absolutely right. We should give as much support as possible to the Government of President Pastrana. We are giving support: we are giving advice and assistance on conflict prevention and helping the Colombians to deal with those who traffic in drugs. We shall continue that support on our own, and also bilaterally with other countries that share our view.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: On reflection, does the Minister agree that it was a mistake to cut the role of the Royal Navy's West Indies guardship in the Caribbean, especially remembering that only last November the crew of HMS Northumberland was responsible for recovering cocaine with a street value of £135 million? Would not restoring the guardship for the full 12 months of the year be a cost-effective way of playing our part in tackling drug trafficking?
    Mr. Vaz: There are many ways in which we play a part in ensuring that drug trafficking is kept under control—for example, in preventing the inflow of drugs to this country. Last year, Customs and Excise seized 2,800 kg of cocaine. This is not just a matter for the Foreign Office. We need to work with all the agencies involved in this country and abroad to ensure that the practice is dealt with as effectively as possible.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the work that is being done to try to combat the pernicious traffic in drugs. What success has been achieved in the
    676
    banking world or with other Governments in curbing numbered bank accounts, which create one of the great difficulties in tracking drug traffickers?
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That problem goes to the root of what we need to do on the various bodies, such as the global programme on money laundering, on which we sit. We need to ensure that there is transparency and accountability. The only way that we can achieve that is to work with financial institutions and other countries to ensure that that happens.

    HIV-AIDS
    Mr. Russell Brown: If he will raise the issue of HIV-AIDS in the developing world at the next G8 summit in Japan. [104192]
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What plans he has to ensure that the G8 summit in Japan will discus the impact that HIV-AIDS is having on the developing world. [104196]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Health and, in particular, HIV-AIDS is one of the issues on which we place priority for this year's G8 summit at Okinawa. We are working with the Japanese presidency and G8 partners to get it high on the agenda.
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that, across the African continent, there is a wide variation in the way in which different Governments tackle the issue of HIV and AIDS. For example, in Uganda, some excellent work is going on. However, in other countries, there is serious concern that the money that should have gone into HIV and AIDS programmes is being diverted into other areas. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the good practice that is being seen in certain countries is promoted in others, especially in countries where we suspect that Governments are not taking the issue as seriously as we would hope?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I shall certainly do that. My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. In Uganda, I visited at Entebbe a health centre financed in part by the British Government that is helping to drive forward an excellent programme. Its importance compared with other countries in Africa is that the Ugandan President has put himself at the head of the campaign. As a result of imaginative measures, such as pop songs, condom distribution, billboards and other initiatives, the rate of infection in Uganda is at last slowing. That is certainly not the case elsewhere in Africa.
    Mr. Gerrard: May I welcome the lead that the Government have given, the money that has been committed over the next three years and, especially, the £14 million that has been given to the international AIDS vaccine initiative? Will my hon. Friend encourage other G8 countries to take similar action, so that we have a common approach that recognises the devastating economic impact of HIV as well as the health aspects? Will he also raise at the summit the question of how we ensure that, in the future, people in developing countries have access to new treatments and that we do not have a

    677
    repetition of the problems that were faced in South Africa last year, when pharmaceutical companies tried to stop the compulsory licensing of drugs by the South African Government?
    Mr. Hain: Again, my hon. Friend makes excellent points with which I agree. I stress his point about the economic impact of AIDS. In Zimbabwe, for example, one in four adults is infected. That is hitting not just ordinary people, but those right at the top of the country and it will have a devastating effect on the country's future professional life and economic expertise.
    That is why the Prime Minister's initiative at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference last November, to which my hon. Friend referred indirectly, and Vice-President Gore's initiative last week when he called for war on AIDS at the United Nations security conference, are so much to be welcomed.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while the important matter of HIV-AIDS will be dealt with at the G8 conference as a discrete matter, the G8 should take care also to recognise the many other serious diseases by which poorer countries in particular are afflicted? Does he agree that the G8, which must on occasion be one of the smuggest gatherings that the world could ever see, has a duty to recognise that prosperity and health are the only ways in which some poorer countries will struggle out of the serious position in which they find themselves?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes such a convincing case that he should perhaps cross the Floor, as some of his colleagues have done. I agree that epidemics, such as malaria in some parts of Africa, are a bigger challenge than AIDS and should be high on the G8 agenda, and that the G8 should take its responsibilities seriously, not least because, ultimately, widespread epidemics in the developing world threaten our security, environmental and health interests in the west.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister agree that conflict and civil war are great factors in the spread of HIV and AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa? When will he do something about the activities of arms brokers which fuel those wars and continue the agony in Africa?
    Mr. Hain: Again, the hon. Lady makes a point that I agree with. We have taken a series of initiatives—for example, we have pressed the Ukrainian Government to tackle their arms dealers to ensure that they stop supplying areas of conflict in Africa, including Angola in the form of supplies to UNITA. We need to keep pressing that case, and our policy is in complete contrast to that of the Conservative Government, who seemed to want to encourage the sale of arms to just about everybody in sight.

    Kashmir
    Kali Mountford: What recent representations he has received concerning Indian policy towards Kashmir. [104193]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We have received many letters and representations, and we take every opportunity to urge a just and lasting solution to Kashmir. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Indian counterpart and, during my visit to India in November, I also raised the matter at the highest level. We shall continue to press both India and Pakistan.
    Kali Mountford: Is it not correct that people in Kashmir are suffering greatly because of cross-border terrorism and that the tension is increased by the presence of troops? Is it not now time, notwithstanding the problems with the Pakistani Government, to reiterate the Foreign Secretary's call on the Pakistani and Indian Governments to return to dialogue before the conflict worsens?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, it is. We want the Lahore process to be resumed as soon as possible, and it would be in the interests of the leadership in both Delhi and Islamabad to do so. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that Pakistani cross-border terrorism is proving to be an enormous threat to the stability of Kashmir. We look to General Musharraf, as the Chief of the Defence Staff told him on his visit last week, to make sure that, under his regime, such terrorism stops. We particularly look to General Musharraf, who is widely seen as the author of the Kargil incident last year, to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Is there any sign, perhaps in the Minister's talks in India or the Foreign Secretary's visits, that the parties concerned are prepared to meet under the provisions of the Simla agreement to discuss the future of Kashmir? If they were to do so, would the United Kingdom be prepared to chair such a conference, bearing in mind that it was our premature withdrawal from India—six months early—which denied the people of Kashmir the plebiscite on their future, and has led to the difficulties, which have existed now for over half a century?
    Mr. Hain: We have made it clear that we stand ready to help in the resolution of the Kashmiri conflict, provided that India and Pakistan jointly ask us to do so. Our role would depend on their invitation. In any case, it is essential, notwithstanding the recent tensions between the two countries, that they start talking because, over Kargil in particular, there was a danger of a massive conflict erupting. Given that both countries are nuclear powers, that could have been extremely dangerous.

    Africa (Conflict Resolution)
    Ms Joan Ryan: What recent discussions he has had with the United States over conflict resolution in Africa. [104194]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): In Washington and New York last month, I had discussions with members of the United States Administration, including the Assistant Secretary

    679
    for Africa, Susan Rice, and the American ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. Topics included Angola, Sierra Leone and the Great Lakes.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Having had such meetings, he must be aware that private companies, private individuals and other countries are breaking United Nations sanctions by supplying fuel and other goods to Angola, as we have heard already, thus helping to perpetuate a war that is causing much devastation and misery. That is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what the Government will be doing about this situation?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that private individuals and companies engaged in breaking the law by deliberately breaching UN sanctions on UNITA are stopped. I can inform the House that we are referring to the UN sanctions committee today, and its expert panels, the details of three such individuals, which we hope they will be able to follow up.
    It is widely known in the region that Jacques "Kiki" Lemaire flies in diesel fuel, landing on UNITA airstrips in a Boeing 707 or Caravelle aircraft. Tony Teixeira has been supplying diesel fuel to UNITA, again flying it in by plane. Victor Bout, who runs an air transport company, has flown in arms to UNITA. It is also believed that Bout owns or charters an Ilyushin 76 aircraft, which was impounded in Zambia en route to Angola last year.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Why did the Minister not include Sudan on the list of those countries which he discussed with his United States counterparts last week? What steps do the Government propose to take in trying to resolve the appalling conditions in southern Sudan and to resolve the civil war there? The population is literally starving to death and HIV-AIDS is rampant. Surely this must be the year that the Government determine to take an initiative, and to make a real effort, to try to solve the problem.
    Mr. Hain: I did indeed discuss Sudan, along with many other African countries, with the United States Administration. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is vital that the civil conflict or war is resolved early. We are supporting the EGAD process, and we are in discussions with the Egyptians on their initiative, to ensure that we make every effort to end an unremitting conflict that has so devastated Sudan.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is always a risk that a long-standing, long-running tragedy, such as the war in Angola, can often be forgotten or overlooked when flashpoints occur elsewhere? The origins of the war in Angola were closely related to the evils of apartheid in South Africa, which have now thankfully been brought to an end. With my hon. Friend's special knowledge of South Africa, will he ensure that, in his conversations with his counterparts in the United States and elsewhere, he will not allow the conflict in Angola, which has continued for more than a
    680
    generation, to slip in any way on the international agenda? We owe it to all to bring the suffering in that country to an end.
    Mr. Hain: I shall certainly be discussing the matter with the South African Government when I visit that country at the end of the month. I give high priority, as surely the whole House should, to ensuring that the dreadful conflict, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people and which has been fomented by Jonas Savimbi's UNITA, is ended quickly. Countries in Europe and the United States and countries in Africa, especially those neighbouring Angola, can bring the conflict to an end if there is the will to do so. With fuel and arms being flown in, sanctions are being breached almost daily. If UN sanctions are to mean anything, they must bite. Britain is determined that they should do so.
    Mr. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister, with his great knowledge of Africa, will know that increasingly sinister alliances are being attracted. For example, the Congo is buying Scud missiles from Iran and President Kabila is having his troops trained by the North Koreans. In the United Kingdom, the smuggling of missile components to Libya that would extend the range of their missiles has been discovered.
    In the light of the escalating threat from Africa, what discussions has the Minister had with the Americans about the positioning of a missile defence shield in Europe? As the United States carries out its anti-ballistic missile tests over the Pacific today, does he agree that we should be increasing our support and co-operation with the United States, in the interests of our own security?
    Mr. Hain: I admire the hon. Lady's ingenuity in extending the question. We are in regular dialogue with our colleagues in Washington and elsewhere in the US about our commitment, as a Labour Government, to nuclear disarmament and to making sure that we rid the world of the threat to global security posed by weapons of mass destruction. We will continue to pursue that dialogue to ensure that our objectives are achieved.

    Cuba
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What recent discussions he has had with the Cuban Government. [104195]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I met my Cuban counterpart, Felipe Perez Roque, in the margins of the Rio summit in June, the first such formal meeting since the 1950s. At that meeting and at others, we have raised our concern over human rights in Cuba. However, it remains our strong view that we are more likely to make progress on human rights and other issues of mutual concern through dialogue than through blockade.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have much to learn from Cuba—high literacy rates, a health service that apparently works the whole year round, and a successful bio-technology industry? When he is next in the State Department in Washington, will he urge

    681
    the Americans to remove their blockade of the Cuban people and lift the economic and travel sanctions against them?
    Mr. Cook: There are opportunities for us to co-operate to our mutual benefit. One such example is the agreement to develop the vaccine against meningitis between SmithKline Beecham and the Finlay institute in Cuba. I welcome such co-operation to the mutual benefit of our two countries and our two peoples.
    May I say to my hon. Friend that Cuba also has a lot to learn from the rest of the world? I endorse the view that we are likely to make progress if Cuba becomes more open to the world, and the world becomes more open to Cuba.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State agree with Human Rights Watch in its report last year, which observed that Cuba has developed a highly efficient machinery of repression? Under the terms of our ethical foreign policy, why are we engaging with Cuba in a way in which we are not prepared to engage, for example, with Burma?
    Mr. Cook: I have always made it clear that we are more likely to make progress if we are prepared to deal with regimes about which we have concern, where there is a possibility of engaging in genuine and sincere dialogue. I have great difficulty in sitting down with members of the military regime in charge of Burma, not only because of its extensive ethnic cleansing of large parts of Burma, and not only because of the fact that at one time it had 200 elected Members of Parliament locked up, but because of its plain connivance and complicity in the heroin trade from Burma, to which it is a major contributor.
    In the case of Cuba, I did raise with the Foreign Minister of Cuba a number of the issues of concern to Human Rights Watch and the rest of us, in particular the trial of four people for doing nothing other than calling for national elections.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In my right hon. Friend's communication with the Cuban Government, has he made it clear that Her Majesty's Government support the principle that the little boy who is now in Honda should be returned to his natural father, and that we are making representations to the United States in support of that view?
    Mr. Cook: That is entirely a matter for the immigration authorities of the United States and its bilateral relations with Cuba. With respect to my hon. Friend, I will not run my neck into that noose.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the sanctions currently applied to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [104200]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Keith Vaz): The EU sanctions regime is a crucial part of the EU's strategy to encourage democratic reform in the Federal Republic of
    682
    Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom continues to oppose any easing of the regime while the current Government are in power in Belgrade, and we fully support the humanitarian exemptions to the regime and the exemptions for Kosovo and Montenegro.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Minister recognise that many of us who wholeheartedly supported the intervention in Kosovo nevertheless have grave reservations about the present sanctions regime against Yugoslavia? Is it not possible to make the sanctions regime more effective and less counterproductive or, better still, to find alternative ways of encouraging the Government of Yugoslavia towards better government? Lastly, will the Minister make sure that there is no hindrance or bar to humanitarian aid for a population that has already suffered enough from Milosevic and his antics?
    Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he asked his question. We have no quarrel with the people of Serbia, only with Milosevic. The sanctions regime is important to ensure that his regime understands that his behaviour is cruel. Of course we are providing humanitarian aid—the European Union contributed 62 million euros last year through its humanitarian office in Belgrade. We shall continue to provide that aid, but we shall not allow Milosevic to get away with his behaviour. Sanctions will continue, and will be monitored at every opportunity.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are not sanctions idiotic and counterproductive? Do not they strengthen Milosevic as they strengthened Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Vaz: No. I supported sanctions against South Africa, and I fully support sanctions against Serbia.
    Mr. John Maples: One part of the Yugoslav Republic suffers from a particular form of sanctions. In June, the Foreign Secretary stated:
    "we are determined … to create a multi-ethnic Kosovo … we will not tolerate … ethnic cleansing".—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 585.]
    Does the Minister realise that the murder of Serbs, Bosniaks and gypsies is a daily occurrence, that more than 120,000 Serbs have been driven out of Kosovo and that the gypsy population has left en masse? Is that the multi-ethnic Kosovo that the Foreign Secretary had in mind and for which NATO fought a war?
    Mr. Vaz: United Nations forces in Kosovo are ensuring that no ethnic cleansing occurs. If it does, they will ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. That is the way to tackle the problem.
    Mr. Maples: I know that the subject is not as familiar to the Minister as it is to the Foreign Secretary, but that is one of the most complacent answers that has been given the House. Nearly the whole Serb population has been driven out of Kosovo. Is not the problem sheer incompetence? Of the 6,000 police requested by the United Nations mission in Kosovo, only 1,800 are in place. The Serb enclave in Mitrovica is in danger of

    683
    leading to the partition of Kosovo. Only 50,000 of the 120,000 ruined houses have been made habitable for the winter. No progress has been made in establishing a civil society. The stability pact has led to nothing and promised money has not been forthcoming. Our armed forces may have won the war, but the Foreign Secretary is losing the peace.
    Mr. Vaz: The Foreign Secretary deserves enormous credit for his actions on the issue that we are considering. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. Half of KFOR's time in Kosovo is spent protecting 5 per cent, of the population. The hon. Gentleman should support efforts in Kosovo, and not try to undermine them.

    Argentina
    Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Government of Argentina. [104201]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We have good relations with Argentina. Former President Menem's visit to Britain assisted the process of reconciliation and paved the way for last July's agreement, which resolved communications with the Falkland Islands and co-operation on fishing in the south Atlantic. I have invited the new Government's Foreign Minister to visit Britain, and I hope to meet him next week in the margins of an international conference.
    Laura Moffatt: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about better relations with Argentina and I share his views. However, on a visit last month to the Falkland Islanders, I became acutely aware of the sensitivities that surround those British people. Will the Foreign Secretary assure them and me that no decisions on the future of the Falkland Islands will be taken without full consultation with them or without their full approval?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that the Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory and will remain so as long as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British. We will not undertake any agreement in relation to Argentina without the full involvement of the Falkland Islanders. The decision that was made last July followed a long period of talks in which Falkland Island councillors took a full part and witnessed the agreement. I congratulate them on their courage and vision in looking forward to the future of the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The master of a yacht registered in the Falklands recently received a letter from the port authorities in Ushuaia stating that boats registered in the Falklands are banned from Argentine ports. Has the Foreign Secretary taken that case up with the Argentine Government?
    Mr. Cook: We have taken up the case of the Golden Fleece and understand that we are nearing a point at which the matter can be resolved in a way that will not result in a recurrence of that incident.

    UN Peacekeeping Missions
    Mr. Michael Portillo: If he will make a statement on the future of the UK's contribution to United Nations peacekeeping missions. [104203]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We are strongly committed to UN peacekeeping and Britain will continue to play a leading role in its support. Along with France, we were the first permanent members of the Security Council to sign a memorandum of understanding on the forces that we could make available to the UN if required. More than 500 UK personnel are on UN-led peacekeeping missions, in addition to the 7,000 personnel on UN-mandated missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. The whole House can take pride in the contribution that those service men and women are making to peace and stability in the countries where they serve.
    Mr. Portillo: Leaving aside practical and political considerations and focusing entirely on ethics, is there a reason to intervene in Kosovo but not in Chechnya?
    Mr. Cook: We intervened in Kosovo to halt and reverse a major ethnic cleansing, and the 850,000 people who were refugees last Easter are back in their homes. In the case of Chechnya, we have repeatedly made it clear to Russia that we deplore the military action that it is taking against civilians and I honestly do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman finds anything amusing in what is happening there. We have supported the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe missions to try to find a political way forward and have already intervened by making sure that we withhold the financial support available from the European Union. I shall continue to take every possible responsible and realistic step to bring home that message to Russia. If he wants us to engage Russia in a military war, he should be honest in saying so. He would find little support, either in the House or in the country outside.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Foreign Secretary have the opportunity—if not, will he take one— to see the television programme broadcast on Sunday night by Jonathan Dimbleby in which it was revealed that there is widespread intimidation of Serbs in Kosovo and ethnic cleansing on a massive scale and that the KLA, whose members were described by my right hon. Friend and the American Secretary of State as "terrorists" a year ago, is in a dominant position in Kosovo? Is he altogether satisfied that the same criteria of humanitarian assistance might not be applied to relieve the pressure there and on the Yugoslav people, who have suffered so much from the NATO bombing?
    Mr. Cook: We are very willing to provide humanitarian assistance to Serbia wherever we can find an interlocutor with whom we can work. That is why we have created the energy for democracy scheme to provide fuel to municipalities under opposition control, but President Milosevic held up those trucks for a long time when they reached the borders of Serbia. In the case of Kosovo, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has said, KFOR spends 50 per cent, of its time protecting the

    685
    Serbian 5 per cent. of the population. It will continue to provide their protection and we shall continue to do everything that we can to build that multi-ethnic Kosovo. I say to my right hon. Friend that I do not accept that the KLA is in a dominant position. We shall continue to work, both in NATO and with UNMIK, to make sure that hardliners and the KLA are clear that we want a Kosovo ruled by the ballot box, not the gun.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: It is all very well to say that KFOR is spending 50 per cent. of its time defending the Serbian minority in Kosovo but, although the UN has been criticised in respect of its role, we are not helping those people. The Serb community in Pristina is down to negligible proportions, Serb monasteries are
    686
    being desecrated as soon as troops leave them and the only safe Serbs are those who are protected by their own people and herded into safe havens. The policy is not working, the whole basis of the war has gone wrong, one exodus has been replaced by another and the reply from the Minister for Europe was wholly complacent. We have to do something to protect those people.
    Mr. Cook: If I may say so, devoting half KFOR's time to protecting those people is doing something. Some sense of proportion must be retained. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not keen on our intervention in Kosovo but, as a result of it, we have seen the most successful return of refugees—850,000—in post-war history. If we had not intervened, those people would still be leading a miserable existence in tents in Macedonia and Albania.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given private notice of this point of order both to you and to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to whom it refers.
Yesterday, I received a letter from someone in Northern Ireland, who had received it from the hon. Member for North Antrim. It described the new education Minister as "a terrorist".
Whatever the merits of strong feeling in the House, we try to contain our feelings within the normal courtesies of language. Although those words were not used in the House—had they been, Madam Speaker, I am sure that you would have rebuked the hon. Member who used them—they were conveyed in a House of Commons envelope, paid for by the state, and related to a Member who is also an education Minister.
I do not want to make too much of this, Madam Speaker, but I wonder whether you feel able to say anything at this point about the use of language. Terrorism is a criminal offence, and to use such language at a time when the peace process is developing in Northern Ireland might merit the Chair's consideration.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it related to the earlier point of order?
Dr. Lewis: Yes, Madam Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received any notification from the Serjeant at Arms or the security advisers of the House that, if two members of Sinn Fein are to be offered facilities in the House, there will be arrangements in future for Members' cars not just to be checked for bombs on the way into the car park, but to be checked for such devices on the way out of it?
Madam Speaker: I never discuss security arrangements across the Floor of the House.
Let me respond to what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who, with his customary courtesy, gave me notice of his point of order. I am afraid that the circumstances that he describes—
688
those involving private correspondence between a Member and his or her constituents—do not call for a ruling from the Chair. I cannot intervene in correspondence between a Member and a constituent.
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have written to you about it, and have sent a copy to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster).
During Prime Minister's questions last Wednesday, the hon. Gentleman began by praising the staff of the Conquest hospital. That is not in dispute, but the hon. Gentleman then told the House:
"no one in need has been turned away".—[Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 275.]
On Friday, I checked with the chief executive of the Hastings and Rother NHS trust, who told me that all elective surgery at the Conquest had been stopped for 10 days by then. More than 100 of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and my constituents, with appointments in January for surgery that they need have been turned away. As of yesterday, elective surgery was still suspended, so yet more people are being turned away.
Are you able to advise hand-wringing Government Back Benchers that if they wish to be bullied by their Whips and Alastair Campbell that is a matter for them, but if they are to peddle downright untruths at Prime Minister's Question Time to make the Prime Minister look more effective—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sending me a long letter about this matter, but I must again make a point that I made earlier in the week. What the hon. Gentleman has said is not a point of order, but a matter of argument. If he feels that the matter needs to be corrected, there are ways and means of doing precisely that in the House, and putting it on record.
Back Benchers in the House of Commons have greater opportunities than members of any other democratic Parliament. They have opportunities to raise matters in Adjournment debates, and through all sorts of other methods. I advise hon. Members that if they have an argument with each other because of the catchment area involved, that is not a matter for a point of order, or for the Chair; it is a matter to be corrected by means of a normal Adjournment debate, an early-day motion or some other method. The Chair should not be involved in squabbles—and that is what this is—between Members on either side of the House.

Immigration (Port of Entry) (Amendment)
3.35 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend entry requirements at air and sea ports to provide three channels of entry, one for European Union citizens, one for subjects of Her Majesty and Her successors and one for others; and for connected purposes.
I seek to introduce the measure to draw attention to an old injustice. I am grateful for the support that I have received on it from hon. Members on both sides. The countries of the inner Commonwealth, those who recognise Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, are, on the whole, those with the closest ties of kinship with this country. A high proportion of the population of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many Caribbean countries have close relatives in this country.
The present immigration arrangements at our airports baldly reflect the law. What used to be the old British channel has been replaced by the British and EU channel, while everyone else is funnelled through the second—the "others"—channel. That reflects the legal reality of the EU, but there is more to life than legal and economic relationships.
In that frightening moment in 1940 after France had fallen, when Winston Churchill said that civilisation itself lay in the balance, this country did not stand alone. Those countries stood with us. We owe them a colossal debt. For example, a higher proportion of Australians and New Zealanders died in the two world wars than British citizens. Montgomery said that the fighting spirit of the Australian 9th division was an example to the whole 8th army.
Today, many men and women who were comrades of those who died are still alive. As one Canadian journalist put it to me, his father-in-law fought all the way through the second world war as a pilot, yet he will have to go through the "others" channel if he visits this country, while the Luftwaffe pilot, bless his heart—I mean him no ill—would come through the home channel for British and EU citizens. The Commonwealth division also fought with great distinction in Korea.
That may seem like ancient history, but it occurred within the lifetimes of some hon. Members who are currently in the House. Much more recently, Australia and Canada were among the first countries to declare their support in both the 1990 Gulf war and the 1998 Gulf crisis. In the Falklands war, New Zealand lent us one of its warships. Whatever one may think of the Kosovo operation, New Zealand was the only country outside NATO to provide troops in support, while Canada provided the fourth largest number of pilots flying missions.
Every time the ties of blood, language, loyalty and affection are raised in the House, people talk about changes in economic relationships. There has indeed been quite a big change in economic relationships: for example, those with New Zealand have changed since the butter agreement was phased out, which had an adverse affect on its economy. The same point could be made about many Caribbean countries as regards the Commonwealth sugar agreement; but Canada and Australia own a much bigger part of this country's industry than do most of our
690
EU partners. We are the second biggest investor in both those countries. Surely, however, there is far more to life than economics. When the chips are down, again and again, we have found that shared ties of blood, values and heritage count for more.
We enjoy the same legal system. Indeed, many Caribbean countries are still plugged into our legal system. We all speak the same language, except the important French-speaking community in Quebec; but what is arguably one of its most important symbols, the Vingt Douze regiment, selected the Queen as its honorary colonel-in-chief.
I remember, some years ago, making my way through a huge crowd of holidaymakers in Cairns—it is now a favourite holiday spot for surfers—and seeing, in a prominent place, a war memorial that, if I remember rightly, started with the words,
"From this distant outpost the following gave their lives…".
I asked myself what made those men and women from Cairns—people such as my great-uncle, who came over from Perth, or like a cousin from Canada, who was in a Scottish-Canadian regiment—come such a long way to share in a cause that they could so easily have shirked. I realised that the ties of kinship and values do matter.
I am not proposing a great legal change to the rights of entry, but only suggesting that, as a gesture of welcome, we should establish a third channel in our principal airports, so that residents of countries that recognise the Queen as head of state have a fast channel of their own. Given the sacrifices of so many Indian soldiers in two world wars—my grandfather served in the Indian army in the first world war—I should love to extend provision of such a channel to the Commonwealth generally, but doing so would create very considerable problems both with asylum legislation and with the difficult position of certain countries vis-a-vis the Commonwealth, including Pakistan. For the moment, therefore, I am arguing only for countries that recognise our Queen as head of state.
All those generations ago, Benjamin Disraeli said that symbols play such a big role in the imagination of our people, and that the monarchy was the most important of those symbols. As they come to our airports and seaports, let us give a warm welcome to citizens of countries that share that pre-eminent symbol, with all that it represents, by giving them an entry channel of their own.
I am grateful for the support that I have received from both sides of the House in promoting the Bill. I now ask the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Charles Wardle, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Joe Ashton, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Andrew Robathan.

Immigration (Port of Entry) (Amendment)
  IMMIGRATION (PORT OF ENTRY) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to amend entry requirements at air and sea ports to provide three channels of entry, one for European Union citizens, one for subjects of Her Majesty and Her successors and one for others; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed [Bill 47].
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Health Care
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.43 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House applauds the dedication and commitment of National Health Service staff whose tireless efforts alone have kept the Service going throughout the present crisis; deplores the Government's inadequate preparation for predicted winter pressures and Ministers' complacency and continual unwillingness to accept responsibility for their failures, including withholding information and misuse of statistics; notes the catalogue of mismanagement of the National Health Service by the Government, including the distortion of clinical priorities, reduced patient access to specialist care and its flawed cancer initiative; regrets the Prime Minister's assertion that there is no alternative to the Government's existing strategy; and calls on the Government to abandon ideology, put the well-being of patients before political dogma and create a health care system fit for the 21st century with a strengthened National Health Service at its centre.
  On Saturday, at my constituency surgery, Mrs. Jones, from Portishead, came to see me. She told me that, since last July, although suffering from a serious illness, she has had a liver biopsy cancelled four times. That is serious enough; however, all the time Mrs. Jones has been waiting for her treatment, minor procedures have been performed in the same hospital. It is a classic example of priorities being distorted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has been campaigning for a woman who has already waited 13 months, and may have to wait up to 17 months, for a triple heart bypass operation at Southampton General hospital. When she saw her general practitioner in December, 1998, she was informed that the wait would be about nine months. Last November, the wait was extended to between one year and 15 months. Now the woman has been told that, because of the winter crisis, the wait might be extended again.
  In Staffordshire, Duncan Sheppard, a financial adviser, has had to remortgage his home for £12,000, to pay for a quadruple heart bypass. Mr. Sheppard had the operation at the private Priory hospital, in Birmingham, after being told that he would have to wait 14 months for the operation at the NHS Good Hope hospital. His wife said:
  "We are just so lucky, because we were later told he only had weeks to live. We are very pleased we took this option."
  That is—the option of remortgaging his home to pay for health care.
  Perhaps the most worrying case was brought to my attention yesterday from North East Anglia health authority area. A man writes:
  "My wife was left on a trolley for eight hours in dire need of urgent treatment for her asthma. She was left passed out for 20 minutes before a nurse came. The consultant said she needed a bed, but there were none available. She was sent home, where she collapsed. I called an ambulance. It took half an hour to arrive. She is now lying in ITU. The consultant says she may be brain damaged. I have two children and they may not now have a mother. This is disgraceful. It cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Blair needs to do something."
  692
  Those are not typical cases of what happens in our health care system, but neither, sadly, are they isolated examples. All hon. Members are getting an increasing post bag of sad cases in which our health care provision is failing our constituents. Just before the election the Prime Minister told voters that they had 24 hours to save the NHS, but three years into his term in government, people are asking what has gone wrong. The people to whom he made promises feel angry, frightened and, above all, betrayed. How right Lord Winston was when he said:
  "We have made health care unsatisfactory for a lot of people".
  What an understatement that was.
  What has been the response of the Secretary of State and his Ministers? In the midst of the current flu epidemic, then flu outbreak, then bronchitis outbreak, we discovered that the health care system of the world's fifth biggest economy can be brought to its knees by something cyclical, predictable and common. The Secretary of State's view is that the NHS is coping very well. The cases that I have mentioned and the hundreds of others that any Member of Parliament could cite show that it is not. The Government are guilty of complacency.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard rose—
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way in a moment. The NHS is only running at all thanks to the herculean efforts of its staff, to whom we all give the greatest credit. The Government's management tools for running the health service, when they are not just being complacent, are bullying and the withholding of information. I shall give examples. I caution the hon. Gentleman to remember that before he makes his intervention.
  Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to believe the Prime Minister when he says that hospitals are managing the crisis. I wonder whether he will accept information from my local hospital. I telephoned the James Paget Healthcare NHS trust this morning and was told that the hospital was managing very well. The management are also pleased that they have just started work on a £700,000 refurbishment of the accident and emergency department and are looking forward to the £80,000 that they are going to get to treat cancer patients.
  The hon. Gentleman uses anecdotes. My local hospital is managing very well. It started routine operations again last week, despite taking people from other areas in its intensive care units.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman says that his local hospital has restarted routine operations. We must ask why they had been stopped if the system was coping so well. The hon. Gentleman should be very grateful if his local hospital is coping well, because that is not the experience of many Members of Parliament.
  The Government employ various means of running the national health service, including bullying. The experience of Lord Winston last week was interesting. Let us look at what he said and how he was treated by the Government. He said:
  "The NHS is just deteriorating because we blame everything on the previous Government."

  693
  We know that. Not a single Minister will take responsibility for their own failures. Lord Winston said of the appalling treatment of his 83-year-old mother:
  "It is normal. The terrifying thing is that we accept it."
  We do not accept it. That is why we are having this debate. He also said:
  "There is a lot wrong with the health service and no one is prepared to say so. I shouldn't really be saying these things to you now."
  What sort of attitude is that? In a free Parliament, no member of either House should have to worry about what they are saying for fear of bullying.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a number of Labour Members. Let me quote his speech to the Tory party conference, where he said:
  "I think what we are proposing will revolutionise private insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s."
  Following the statements at the weekend on the current issues before the health service, will the hon. Gentleman now come clean? The Tories state that they want an alternative, non-ideological strategy. What will that strategy be—private health insurance?
  Dr. Fox: I would urge the Labour Whips to try to give the interventions to their Back Benchers in a form that they can at least read. I will come to the explanation that the hon. Gentleman seeks later. It will be available in a monosyllabic form for Labour Back Benchers later on.
  Lord Winston was so cowed after his comments because he could see what was coming. In the twilight world of new Labour spin, the dark shadow of Alastair Campbell was fast approaching. It seems that the Prime Minister's press secretary is better able to gain retractions and recantings from heretics than the inquisition ever was. The result of the grand inquisitor's intervention on this occasion was, incredibly, that Lord Winston—having made an impassioned plea for improvements in the NHS and having pointed out the deficiencies that exist— suddenly told us that he meant no criticism of the Government in any way at all. Remarkable—but it was sad to see a man of such integrity treated so shabbily by the Government's ruthless propaganda machine.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Over the weekend, the Prime Minister essentially promised billions extra for the health service, through guaranteeing real increases in expenditure towards the EU average. Could the hon. Gentleman match that pledge, given that he acknowledges that there is a need for more money? Or does he acknowledge that his tax guarantee will mean the inevitable privatisation of the health service?
  Dr. Fox: We are now told that it was a pledge from the Prime Minister to raise spending to the EU average within five years. I look forward to the Secretary of State confirming that that was a pledge. I look forward to hearing which programmes from the public spending review will be sacrificed to make up the vague billions that the Prime Minister promised. That will be an interesting passage of the Secretary of State's speech.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I have given way several times. I shall do so again, but not for the moment.
  694
  We must look at the way the Government run the health service. The culture of this Government is that if information is inconvenient, deny it, corrupt it or change it—even better, withhold it. We know that the bed availability and occupancy report, which is normally published in October, has been sitting on the Secretary of State's desk. Why, we wonder? Is it because it may be slightly more critical than the Government's own report card, issued in the summer? Perhaps it is unlikely to boost the standing of the most unpopular member of the Cabinet, although I notice—to be fair—that the Secretary of State is also the least known member of the Cabinet. Goodness knows what will happen when he is better known.
  Is the report being withheld because beds are being lost all the time under a Government who pretend that the trend is in exactly the opposite direction? I look forward to the Minister promising the immediate publication of the report.
  If withholding information does not work, the Government can try deceptions, half-truths and smokescreens. Let me give two examples. The Intensive Care Society recently asked about the number of extra intensive care beds that the Government claimed to have created. They were told by the Department of Health that the figure was 100. Then the line changed. No.10 said that there were 100 critical care beds. Then the line changed again. The Prime Minister told Sir David Frost that perhaps about one third were intensive care beds. The answer seems to be different every time the question is asked.
  The Secretary of State sent me a letter on 6 January which said that 100 extra intensive care beds had been made available this year. The Secretary of State gave an answer which was factually incorrect. He looks at the letter, which he may well not remember signing. It does say that it was approved by the Secretary of State, and signed in his absence. The information changes from day to day. It is tidal, it comes and goes. There is no such thing as truth under this Government, merely convenience and inconvenience.
  Caroline Flint: Some tit-for-tat fun always takes place in these debates, but there is a serious point that goes to the heart of the discussion of our national health service—how it should be funded. I ask the hon. Gentleman point blank: does he or does he not support compulsory health insurance to fund the NHS, and does he recognise the great inequalities that that would create?
  Dr. Fox: I shall come in some detail to how we intend the service to be funded. However, I do not regard watching the health service deteriorate as tit-for-tat fun. The hon. Lady may do so, and she may regard the litany of failures as entertaining, but I do not find it so.
  Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend's comments about the claims for the number of intensive care beds changing almost daily may be more prophetic than he realises, because the Government are considering plans to close four intensive care beds in Ashford hospital in my constituency.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The Department of Health will doubtless issue a press

  695
  release claiming that the number of intensive care beds in that hospital has increased, because there is no such thing as truth or lies in this Government's culture. The information released is what suits them.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my hon. Friend comment on the proposed closure of the accident and emergency and intensive care units in my local hospital? In answer to questions about the new configuration for hospitals in my area—which will include a 15 per cent. cut in beds—we were told, "We cannot give details because there is no robust medical plan in place yet."
  Dr. Fox: That does not surprise me at all. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard about intensive care beds and he may wish to raise that issue with the Secretary of State when he makes his speech. It would be interesting to know what plans he has for health care in my hon. Friend's area.
  Jean Corston rose—
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way shortly. Yesterday, in what was billed as a great boost and a propaganda coup for the Government, the pay awards for NHS staff were brought forward in a panic measure after the Prime Minister's speech at the weekend. However, the Government failed to understand that NHS staff would spot immediately that the awards were unfunded. This morning, The Guardian said that NHS services would be squeezed and The Mirror said, graphically:
  "Brilliant! But how will nurses be paid?"
  The pay award issue goes to the heart of how the Government run our health care. Lord Winston said:
  "I think we've been quite deceitful about it. We haven't told the truth and I'm afraid there will come a time when it will be impossible to disguise the inequality of the health service from the general population."
  Those are damning words from one of our leading health experts who is also a notable ally of the Prime Minister.
  Of all the factors that prevent us from having a meaningful debate on health care, one of the most obstructive is the Government's dogmatic approach to the independent sector. The private sector tells us that, if there had been earlier consultation before the winter flu outbreak, it would have been able to make more beds available for the NHS when it was overstretched. It is the Labour party's dogmatic hatred of the independent sector that makes the Government incapable of any meaningful negotiation with it in the interests of patients.
  Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady must not jump up and down like a demented meerkat. I shall give way in a moment.
  The Prime Minister's press secretary, who now doubles as prime ministerial stand-in and as a Treasury spokesman, intervened in the debate today. The Press Association reported:
  "Blair rules out tax breaks for private health insurance".
  However, it was his press secretary who said:
  "We don't have an ideological hatred of the private sector, it's just that we don't see it as a solution to the problems of the NHS."
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the pay awards and I can tell him
  696
  that the nurses will get their pay rise from the biggest boost in spending on the NHS in its history, which this Government have delivered. However, the Conservatives' guarantee to cut taxes, even in a recession, means that if they were in power they would have guaranteed to cut spending on the health service and hand it over entirely to the private sector.
  Dr. Fox: That is a bizarre intervention. The hon. Gentleman suggests that health expenditure cannot be increased at the same time as taxes are cut. He does so just two months before the Government cut taxes by 1p to compensate for the stealth taxes that they have already imposed. That is a ridiculous argument.
  No one begrudges the nurses' and junior doctors' pay rise, which they thoroughly deserve. However, allocations to health authorities and spending plans were already complete before those fully accepted—but not fully funded—pay rises were announced. So some cuts will have to be made in the allocations for the patient programmes already planned by health trusts and health authorities. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is grinning, but it is not funny for the people whose services will be squeezed and cut.
  Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: Very well, if only so that I can get some peace.
  Jean Corston: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, however reluctantly. The Avon health authority provides hospital services for people in my constituency and the hon. Gentleman's. It said today that, despite an average daily increase of 14 per cent. in emergency admissions during the flu epidemic, no health trust had had to refuse emergency admissions. It also said that, although some routine surgery had had to be cancelled, plans were in hand to cut waiting times. Does not that show that the health service for our constituents has responded magnificently to a once-in-a-decade epidemic? Does it not also throw into stark relief the hon. Gentleman's assertion to the Tory party conference that the NHS could only ever provide a second-rate service?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady was doing quite well for the first four or five minutes of her intervention. I was going to welcome what she was saying, and I am grateful that her constituents and mine live in the area of a health authority that has coped reasonably well.
  However, the hon. Lady said that this epidemic has been the worst in a decade. In reality, it is probably only the fourth worst outbreak in 10 years, and it is not so different from other outbreaks. In any case, why should routine surgery have to be cancelled? Outbreaks of flu in our health care system happen in most years, so why should we be grateful that emergency admissions have not been stopped? The hon. Lady's remarks reveal an almost incredible complacency.
  The Secretary of State is second to none in his dislike of independent health care. I have a letter from the former chairman of the St. Helier health trust, describing what happened on Thursday 26 March 1998 at the Department of Health building at Elephant and Castle. He and his

  697
  colleagues were to be lectured on their obligations by the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). However, because the right hon. Gentleman was late, the present Secretary of State gave the lecture. The letter states that the Secretary of State admonished the audience to deliver the Government's promise on waiting lists. The letter adds:
  "During questions, someone (I think, but cannot be sure, that it was Dr. Tudor Thomas, the Chief Executive of Epsom Healthcare NHS Trust) referred to a satisfactory arrangement his Trust had with a local private hospital."
  The present Secretary of State was described as "furious". The letter states that he
  "told us all that he would 'come down like a ton of bricks' on anyone who had anything to do with the private sector."
  The letter went on:
  "I was sitting next to Sir William Rous (sadly deceased) chairman of Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, and he was as incensed as I was at the dogmatic and nonsensical attitude."
  That dogmatic and nonsensical attitude persists to this day at the heart of the Department of Health.
  The real reason for today's debate is that matters need not be as they are. Up and down the country, doctors, nurses, other health care professionals and voters do not want the NHS to be used as a political football in future. [Interruption.] The mechanism for delivering health care in this country need be no more controversial than it is in other developed countries. That is entirely possible.
  Today, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I made an offer to the Government and to the Liberal Democrat party. Three things can be done to remove the national health service from this febrile political atmosphere. First, we offer the NHS a guarantee. It needs long-term stable financing and less political interference. We believe that there should be increased NHS funding year on year in real terms. We believe that there should be improved NHS management, allowing hospitals to get on with the job of treating patients, and no privatisation—instead, as now, there should be a continued commitment to publicly funded health care, free at the point of delivery.
  Secondly, the NHS should give patients a guarantee. [Interruption.] This is a serious debate; it requires something more than the primary school outing that is being held on the Government Back Benches.
  Patients should have a guaranteed waiting time, determined by the clinical priorities of doctors, not the political priorities of spin doctors. There should be an agreement that if the NHS cannot meet the guarantee, independent health care resources should be used. What matters is when patients are treated, not where they are treated or what sector they are treated by.
  Overall, our health service requires more resources. We need to increase our expenditure in the NHS—the state-funded sector—and in the private sector. There should be no ideological block to partnership with independent health care providers. I mentioned how the crisis in the health service could have been averted had we used the independent sector better. However, there should be no punishment through the taxation system for those who take out independent health care provision, and we should review the tax treatment of health care costs
  698
  on companies and individuals. We should create the opportunity to expand total health spending in both the public and personal sectors to reach more quickly the level spent on health by our major European partners.
  We believe that a mixed provision in health care will enable us to reach the health outcomes of our European partners, but far more quickly than the target set by the Prime Minister. The dogma of the Labour party, however, prevents us from doing so.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right to say that the NHS is under great stress. He is also right that the health service does not have enough beds, doctors or nurses. Could he therefore tell the House why his Government cut the number of beds by 40,000 and the number of nurse training places by 2,000 a year, which is what got us into this mess in the first place?
  Dr. Fox: The number of doctors in the health service was higher at the end of our term of office than at the beginning—as was the number of nurses. I should have thought that that was record enough. As for nurse training places, I know that the hon. Gentleman knows that the number of nurse training places had already increased for the two years before the Conservatives left office, a trend that is happily being followed by the current Government.
  Before we can entertain a proper, mature health debate, we have to accept three basic facts. First, the NHS cannot do everything at a time when medical science is expanding faster than our ability to fund it. Secondly, we no longer have the best health care system in the world— we used to, but we have fallen behind. Thirdly, the NHS has failed as a welfare model, because the poorest in our society have not only the poorest access to health care but the worst health outcomes. That must be addressed.
  The Labour party is in a panic over the one issue that it arrogantly and complacently believed was its own. The Secretary of State was undermined by the Prime Minister over the number of intensive care beds. He was in the dark about the Prime Minister's announcement about funding on the David Frost programme. The Secretary of State is no doubt being lined up as the fall guy by the propaganda machine for when the trust ratings fall further.
  Before No. 10 starts briefing that the Secretary of State is going to run as mayor of Darlington, and before he plumbs new depths of unpopularity, he has one chance to safeguard and protect his future and that of the NHS. He should drop the dogma, the soundbites and the deception, and should join us in creating a health care system fit for Britain in the 21st century.
  4.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "applauds the dedication and commitment of National Health Service staff for their tireless efforts at all times and in particular during the millennium holiday period and the current severe outbreak of flu; welcomes the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of National Health Service Pay Review bodies in full and without staging for the second year, in stark contrast to the practice of the previous administration; notes that, between 20th December and last weekend, there were 350,000 999 calls, over 800,000 attendances at Accident and Emergency departments and there have been over 250,000 emergency admissions; recognises

  699
  the vital role in meeting these pressures played by the unprecedented level of planning for the winter, covering health and social services and the extension of NHS Direct to two-thirds of England; welcomes the measures already taken by this Government to increase the capacity of the National Health Service, including increased provision of critical care beds, the modernisation of Accident and Emergency departments, the biggest ever National Health Service hospital building programme, the employment of additional doctors and the recruitment of more nurses, the cuts in in-patient waiting lists, the extra investment to modernise cancer, coronary and mental health services and the commitment to increased investment in and modernisation of the National Health Service; and rejects the Opposition's proposals to privatise the National Health Service."
  May I say first that we already have a good mayor in Darlington?
  Today's debate is not only about the state of the national health service. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, it is about the future of health care itself. There are no closed minds in the Government when it comes to radical reform of the NHS. That is precisely what we have been doing for the past two and a half years. The Labour Government made the private finance initiative work in the NHS, and will continue to do so. [Interruption.] The Conservative Whip may scoff, but as a consequence of the PFI, 16 new hospitals are being built, some in parts of the country that had been waiting for decades.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), because he, too, is a radical.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The Secretary of State says that there are no closed minds on the Labour Benches. Will he therefore dissociate himself from the comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, who said:
  "All private medicine is immoral. I hope all private medicine withers and dies."
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Woodspring have raised the matter of private medicine several times, and are starting to be—
  Mr. Michael Portillo: Answer the question.
  Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a hearing problem. I know that he returned to the House only recently, but if he bears with me, he will hear the answer. The Conservative party is beginning to act as if it were the political wing of the private health insurance movement. Let me make it absolutely clear that no matter how serious the challenges facing the NHS—I readily admit that there are many—a private alternative is not the right remedy for Britain.
  Modernisation and the investment that goes with it are the only means by which our health care system can serve the whole nation. No one pretends that there are no problems in the NHS, or that all patients are receiving the care that we all wish them to have. If we thought that nothing was wrong, we would not be working hard to put matters right.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State regret the Government's early decision
  700
  to abolish tax deductibility on private health care insurance for the over-60s? Will he move rapidly to reinstate it?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I do not regret that decision. Anyone who reads Lord Lawson's memoirs will gain an interesting insight into the debate that took place between him, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, about private health care insurance. In fact, tax relief on private health insurance meant that the number of elderly people who took it out barely moved for seven years. When we abolished it, we put £140 million to much better effect by cutting value added tax on fuel.
  Dr. Fox: Why, when all other socialist Governments in Europe see private medical insurance as a supplement augmenting state spending, do our Government, isolated among commentators in the United Kingdom and Europe, believe that it must be an alternative?
  Mr. Milburn: It would be an interesting development in the Conservative party if the hon. Gentleman was advocating foisting on the British people the German or French models. The Government do not support that development for reasons to which I shall come shortly. [Interruption.] It is not about dogma or ideology but about what works best for Britain.
  Nobody pretends that there are no problems in the national health service. The difference between the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government is that we recognise the problems, and— what is more—we are taking action to tackle them. As I made absolutely clear in my statement to the House eight days ago, the NHS has been under severe pressure this winter. The doctors, nurses and other staff of the health service have done a brilliant job during the past few weeks—the hon. Member for Woodspring is quite right about that. However, to listen to the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—and, indeed, some of the more hysterical parts of the media—one would think that the health service had simply ground to a halt. It has not. During the past four weeks alone, there have been more than 350,000 999 calls; almost 820,000 attendances at casualty departments and more than 250,000 emergency admissions to hospitals.
  The Conservatives accuse us of mismanaging the NHS this winter. That is not what health service managers are saying. The NHS Confederation describes health service planning for this winter as "excellent" and "unprecedented". Doctors' leaders agree. Dr. Ian Bogle, the chairman of the British Medical Association, said that
  "thanks to the high level of planning across the country the NHS is coping."
  The hon. Member for Woodspring has been quoting doctors. Let me quote from a letter that I received today from 20 senior clinicians throughout the country—a letter, incidentally, that The Times refused to publish. [Interruption.] All of a sudden, Conservative Members are keen to listen to doctors' leaders—let them listen to what those doctors have to say. The letter stated:
  "To suggest as some commentators have done that the NHS is offering 'third world care' or that the health service failed to prepare adequately for the pressures of winter is incorrect … the Government's policy is moving the NHS in the right direction. The NHS represents the fairest and most effective way of delivering

  701
  health care. The British people are right to press for it to be properly funded and modernised. To dismantle it would be a disaster we would live to regret."
  The letter was from clinicians in London, Birmingham, Cheltenham, north Tyneside and other parts of the country.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: As we are comparing letters from doctors, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the letter, dated 15 January, from five consultants at Wycombe hospital that asks him formally to take responsibility for the rundown state of intensive care in this country?
  Mr. Milburn: It is undoubtedly true that there has been particular pressure on intensive care beds, despite the fact that we provided extra beds this winter. It is not true, as the hon. Member for Woodspring alleges, that those critical care beds do not exist. They do exist; throughout the country, there are extra intensive care beds and extra high-dependency beds.
  Mr. Brazier: What does the Secretary of State say to people in east Kent who face the loss of the accident and emergency unit at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, and a 16 per cent, fall in total bed numbers over the next three or four years?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall come to bed numbers in the next sentence or two. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman and to his Front-Bench colleagues that, every time today's Tories talk about health care, there is an epidemic—an epidemic of hypocrisy and an outbreak of selective amnesia. Nowhere is that more evident than on bed numbers. We shall take no lectures on beds from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), from his Front-Bench colleagues or from the Conservative party.
  The Conservatives cut 40,000 beds from our hospitals during their last 10 years in office. That is why we set up the national beds inquiry—
  Mr. Philip Hammond: What about the beds inquiry?
  Mr. Milburn: I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer, if he will remain patient for a moment or two. I shall publish the results of that national inquiry within the next few weeks. It will make the case for an increase in bed numbers. It will end two decades of orthodoxy and ideology that declared that beds were bad. Modernising the health service means expanding health services.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time.
  Dr. Fox: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. As I referred to his letter of 6 January, and as it would be extremely unfortunately to have the Secretary of State or his Department's officials accused of either misinformation or disinformation when the Prime Minister said that there would be 30 extra intensive care
  702
  beds and the Secretary of State said that there would be 100, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will publish where those 100 beds are?
  Mr. Milburn: I can give the hon. Gentleman some of the details today if that is helpful. There are extra beds at St. Mary's in London; extra beds in Norfolk and Norwich hospital; extra beds in Leicester general; extra beds in Warrington hospital and extra beds in the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle. They are all extra intensive care beds. [HON. MEMBERS: "HOW many?"] Conservative Members ask "How many?" There will be two at St. Mary's; two at Norfolk and Norwich; one at Leicester general; two at the Royal Victoria infirmary and one extra intensive care bed at Warrington hospital. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for a full list. He will get a full list when we publish it.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment or two, because I always like giving way to him. For the moment, however, I ask him to calm down.
  It is the same story when it comes to nurse training: the same amnesia and the same hypocrisy from the Conservative party. The Conservatives say that we have left the NHS short of nurses, but it was the Conservative Government who cut the number of nurse training places by almost 4,000. It is this Government who are increasing the number of nurses, and of nurses in training, with 5,000 more nurses returning to the NHS; 4,500 more training places; and 14,000 more applicants for courses. Just today, the first 140 nurse-consultant posts have been established in all parts of the country.
  Mr. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I will not. I have given way several times. I might give way in a moment or two if the hon. Lady will just calm down.
  Let us not forget, either, the two largest real-terms increases in pay that nurses have received in almost a decade and a half. They have been paid in full—and unlike under the Conservative party—without any staging. They are fair pay rises so that we get more doctors and more nurses into the health service and make it more worth their while to stay in it too. Expanding the staff of the health service is the way that we will expand services to patients.
  That is one of the differences that the Labour Government are making to the state of the national health service, and I shall tell—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way for the moment. Members should know better than to continue to try to intervene.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Member for Woodspring, and the Conservative party generally, are very keen to talk

  703
  about mismanagement. Let us talk about it, then. Mismanagement is when one wastes £30 million on legal and consultancy fees for private finance initiative—
  Mr. Gillan rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let me just get this straight. Is the Secretary of State giving way to the hon. Lady?
  Mr. Milburn: No.
  Madam Speaker: Thank you. The hon. Lady must resume her seat.
  Mr. Milburn: I have given way several times to Conservative Members and I deeply regret the fact that I have. If the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is patient, I might give way to her at the end of my speech.
  Mismanagement is wasting £30 million on legal and consultancy fees for private finance initiative hospital schemes that one could not even get off the ground. Good management is building 16 new hospitals worth £1.3 billion as part of the biggest hospital building programme that the health service has ever seen. That is the difference between this Government's management of the health service and the Conservative Government's mismanagement of it.
  The Opposition motion deplores mismanagement. I deplore it too. That is precisely why we have abolished the internal market that the Conservatives created—an insane competition between hospitals that fragmented services and wasted millions. That is why we have ended two-tier care and that is why we are well on the way to moving £1 billion out of NHS bureaucracy and into front-line patient care.
  Mismanagement is when a Government, in the name of free-market ideology, turn a blind eye to poor hospital standards and second-rate performance. Good management is when a Government have the courage to establish for the first time an independent inspectorate and a systematic dismantling of the lottery of care. Mismanagement is when in-patient waiting lists rise by 400,000. Good management is when they fall by 87,000. Mismanagement is when a Government leave office with investment in new NHS building, plant and equipment at a 10-year low. Good management is when that investment is at an all-time high. There is more investment in cancer and in GP surgeries, and 150 casualty departments are already being modernised.
  Mismanagement is when cancer and cardiac services— the services that deal with our country's biggest killers— are left neglected and under-invested for decades. Good management is when more money is being invested, more doctors are being trained and more operations are being performed. That is the difference that the Labour Government have started to make. More hospitals are being built; more nurses are being recruited; more doctors are being trained and more patients are being treated.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the Secretary of State has said, what does he have to say to my constituent, Colonel Bruce Owen from Marsh Gibbon in Buckingham—[Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter for him. He suffered a heart attack on 7 July last year,
  704
  eventually saw a consultant surgeon at Harefield hospital in the middle of November and was told that he would have to wait at least 12 months for the triple bypass surgery that he requires. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell my constituent and the House why that individual, who has saved and who has contributed to this society throughout the 60 years of his life, should have to spend £13,000 of his hard-earned savings on the treatment of which the inadequate health service is currently depriving him?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important constituency case. I say to him that of course we always regret circumstances in which patients do not get the care that they deserve from the national health service. Let me say to him, however, that it is fatuous to pretend that problems in cardiac services began on 1 May 1997. It is fatuous to pretend that problems in cancer services began on that date. The truth is that for decades the previous Government failed adequately to invest in cancer and cardiac services. They left those services under-invested, under-doctored and under-nursed. That is why we have made those services our top priority for modernisation.
  Mr. Blizzard: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, while Conservative Member after Conservative Member has risen to point out some deficiency in the NHS, all that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman could offer has been privatisation, privatisation and privatisation? He could not offer the new public resources that the Government are investing because his Front-Bench colleagues described those resources as "reckless".
  Mr. Milburn: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point. [Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing now, but they will not be laughing in a moment or two because I am about to turn to that very matter.
  We are making progress. The NHS is modernising and changing. There are new services, but there are also severe capacity problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said in an earlier intervention, we need more doctors, more nurses and better services. Sadly, that takes time. It takes three or four years to train a nurse and double that to train a doctor, and it takes more money.
  In the past 20 years NHS funding has grown by just 3 per cent. a year. That is the real legacy of the Conservative party. From last April, this Government have raised those levels of investment by a further 50 per cent. There is more money this year; there will be more money next year and more money the year after, but that is just the start. We know that we lag behind the rest of the European Union on health spending. We are determined to close the gap. As the Prime Minister said—
  Mr. Gillan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) must resume her seat.
  Mr. Milburn: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Sunday, if we can get real-terms

  705
  increases in funding of 5 per cent. a year, we shall get up to the European level. Our ambition is to have a health service that is doing more than coping. We want an NHS that is growing and modernising.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: If the Secretary of State genuinely believes what he has told the House this afternoon, why is it that the majority of people outside the House do not have the same confidence in the NHS and do not share his confidence in the Government's ability to protect it? I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point about intensive or critical care beds. He said that there are 100 new beds, but he has been able to identify only eight of them. Where are the other 92?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first. I shall publish the figures on intensive and high dependency beds in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about lack of public confidence. Of course there are problems with the NHS. Everybody understands that. The Government are addressing them, but there is a fundamental political debate taking place between the Government and the Opposition about the way in which health resources can grow in future. There are two very different futures on offer.
  Everybody knows that we need to spend more money on the NHS, except the members of today's Conservative party. Only the Conservative party could argue that the Government have gone soft on public spending on class sizes and waiting lists. Only the Conservative party could impose on itself the straitjacket of the tax guarantee, which would mean less investment in public services such as the NHS and more investment in the Conservative party's priorities, including top-rate tax cuts for the privileged few.
  It is no wonder that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said what he did about the tax guarantee. He said:
  "To say that you are going to reduce the proportion of taxes to GDP in all circumstances is mad. You simply"—
  [Interruption.] That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. I note that Conservative Members are not laughing now. Their former Prime Minister said that that was mad. He then said:
  "You simply don't unless you make swingeing cuts in the Health Service."
  Those were the words of the last Conservative Prime Minister.
  The simple truth is that we are spending more on the Health Service and Conservatives want to spend less.
  Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Milburn: In the process, they want to force more people to go private.
  Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Milburn rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) say, "On a point of order"?
  Dr. Fox: I made the position extremely clear when I spoke. I do not wish the Secretary of State unintentionally to mislead the House. I made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that our policy—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is a point of debate and not a point of order.
  Mr. Milburn: I know that it is a narrow judgment call, but if the question is whether I trust most the hon. Gentleman or the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, I will go with the former Prime Minister.
  The Conservatives want to force more people to go private. The hon. Member for Woodspring calls his patients' guarantee a Trojan Horse. I think that that was the phrase he used. We are beginning to see what lies within that horse.
  The hon. Gentleman could not have been more explicit in his interview with The Sunday Times only two days ago. He boasted:
  "Philosophically, we have moved on".
  That is, moved on from the NHS. He added:
  "Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not high-tech or expensive, like hip and knee replacements and hernia and cataract operations."
  Now we know the first set of treatments that the Tories' patients' guarantee would surgically remove from the NHS. Every year—
  Dr. Fox: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: Oh no. I shall give way at the end.
  Every year a third of a million people have hip, knee, hernia and cataract operations on the NHS. Under the patients guarantee, those 300,000 people would be denied NHS care because the hon. Gentleman thinks that their condition is too trivial. Instead, they will have to pay privately for treatment that they now receive free.
  The average cost to the NHS of a hip replacement operation is £3,755. In the case of a knee replacement, the bill rises to £5,157. However, the cost of the operation is only half the picture. If those operations are beyond the pale of the NHS, who pays the bill for the initial consultant referral? The patient pays. Who pays the bill for the pre-operative out-patient assessment? The patient pays. Who pays the bill for community physiotherapy? The patient pays. Who pays the bill for the district nurse visit to remove sutures? The patient pays.
  Who pays the bill for the follow-up at six weeks? The patient pays. Who pays at six months? The patient pays. Who pays at 12 months? The patient pays. Time and again, the Conservative guarantee is that the patient pays.
  Dr. Fox: Sadly for the Secretary of State, I write the Conservative health policy, not him. He can make up as

  707
  much of it as he fancies in his little fantasy world. We intend that patients will get a maximum guaranteed waiting time. Many of the procedures that he mentions are carried out at present through many different independent schemes, including through trade union schemes.
  Mr. Milburn: Is the article right?
  Dr. Fox: No, it is not right.
  Every single time any of those procedures are carried out in the independent sector, it reduces the waiting list in the national health service. The problem is that the Secretary of State is so blinded by his own dogma that he wants to put politics before patients.
  Mr. Milburn: I look forward to the retraction in The Sunday Times. I presume that even now there is a letter winging its way. Is that right or is it wrong?
  Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State is trying to create yet another smokescreen with yet another example of what the Labour party does best—half-truth, misinformation and disinformation. We have made it clear in this debate that we believe in increasing spending on the NHS year on year in real terms. We believe in encouraging as many people as possible to take up independent provision, because that increases the total capacity of health care in this country. It is a shame that the Secretary of State is so intellectually sterile that he cannot accept the argument, as can other socialists in Europe and every commentator in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Milburn: I look forward to reading the letter. The hon. Gentleman did not convince his own side, let alone the House.
  Let us have a debate about the merits of private health insurance. I am happy to engage in such a debate. The patients who would be forced to pay private health insurance under the patient guarantee and the tax guarantee are precisely those who could least afford to do so.
  Two thirds of patients in hospital are elderly people. Together, the very young and the very old are the biggest consumers of health care in our country, but they are the very people who would be priced out of the health insurance market. The very people who need most care, and the very ones who are most at health risk, are they very people who would be least able to get it.
  The second reason why private health insurance is the wrong answer is that it would divert hundreds of millions of pounds that should be spent on the NHS into a huge cash handout in tax reliefs and subsidies.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Milburn: There seems to be some dispute on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Woodspring was urging me to reinstate private health insurance subsidies. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) indicates that that is wrong. Which is it? Is the hon. Member for Woodspring right? I presume he is.
  Dr. Fox: I was urging the Secretary of State not to extend national insurance contributions to employers to punish them for giving private health care to their
  708
  employees, which is enjoyed by a large number of employees in the United Kingdom, many of whom are trade unionists.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman should keep digging because he is doing a good job for us. Today's Conservative party, like that of the 1990s, wants to give a huge cash handout in tax reliefs and subsidies for private medical insurance. Much of that would go to people who already have private medical insurance. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Daily Mail, which reported today that the costs of subsidising employers would be £368 million. That is before a single extra person signs up to an extra health insurance policy. That £368 million from the national health service budget is the equivalent of 1,050 intensive care beds or 16,000 nurses. Yet Conservative Members have the gall to claim that their policy is about expanding access to health care. It would be money down the drain.
  It is fatuous to pretend, as the hon. Member for Woodspring does, that more private health care would lift the burden from the health service. It would impose an extra burden.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No. There is no reserve army of unemployed oncologists or cardiac surgeons waiting for a private call to arms.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No. An expanded private sector would mean a contraction of the public sector, which would face higher costs with fewer staff. It would mean a brain drain from the NHS. The Conservatives' proposals on private health insurance are wrong. They affect the wrong people at the wrong cost and have the wrong effect.
  Private health insurance, the knee-jerk reaction of the Conservative party, could not provide an efficient or fair health care system. It would take the United Kingdom back to an era when access to health care depended not on clinical need, but on ability to pay. That is not the future for health care in our country. The Government reject the idea that the NHS should be a residual safety net service for the poor, which will inevitably become a poorer service. We reject that not on ideological grounds but because it simply would not work.
  Dr. Stoate: How would the private insurance sector respond to people who have chronic conditions such as diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis, or those who have chronic health problems, most of which are excluded from the majority of health insurance programmes?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend, who is a general practitioner, makes a good, telling point. He knows that the private insurance sector would be incapable of insuring the people whose health is most at risk. That is why Conservative arguments are so fatuous. We do not oppose them on ideological grounds [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We do not. We oppose them because they would not work. There are two possible futures for health care in our country: privatisation with the Conservatives and

  709
  modernisation with Labour. We have the courage of our convictions. We believe in a comprehensive, modernised and well-resourced NHS, which provides care that is based on need, not ability to pay. We believe in a truly national health service, which is worthy of the name. The people of our country expect that. Tax relief for private health care is not an answer to the challenges of the health service. The answer is a rising level of resources for the NHS, funded through general taxation, in a way that the people can understand and in which they can have confidence. That is the way forward for the modern, 21st-century health service that our nation needs.
  The NHS is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century; it must now undergo one of the greatest modernisations of the 21st century. No matter how much Conservative Members rant and rave, we will not yield one inch to the privatisers of our nation's health. We stand firm for the NHS—not as it is, but as the modern health service that it could be. The nation now knows the choice that it faces—between those who want to privatise the NHS and those who want to modernise it. The nation should know that we will deliver a modern NHS—a new NHS fit to face the challenges of the new millennium.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: As we have this debate, the Government have been under fire over the national health service, in the media and politically, for getting on for three weeks. It is hard to think of any occasion since 1 May 1997 on which their spin doctors have so lost control of the agenda that they have found themselves under fire on a domestic policy issue for three weeks solid, but this is largely a mess of their own making. Listening to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who introduced the debate on behalf of the Conservative party, one could have been forgiven for thinking that all those problems had miraculously started on 1 May 1997. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.
  The 18 years of Conservative misrule led to a great many of the problems. It is not the present Government's fault that they inherited a mess, but it is their fault that in three years they have not made more progress in putting some of that mess right. They played the health issue up strongly at the general election, saying that they alone could save the NHS, but what they have done since— certainly in terms of investment in the NHS—has not even kept up with the year-on-year funding increases made by the Conservatives. The changes that they have made, which the Secretary of State described as radical modernisation, have been over-hyped, although some have started down useful tracks. The recent flu crisis, outbreak or wave—whatever hon. Members care to call it; regrettably, I have sampled it from a patient's perspective—validated the warnings given by health managers, doctors, nurses and others about the pressure that the NHS was under. It took the recent outbreak to show the situation in its true light.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman support the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) who denounced all who work in the independent health care sector, using a word that begins with "b" and ends with "s", or does he agree that that outrageous attribution in
  710
  The Health Service Journal was a profound insult, both to people working in the independent sector and, indeed, to children born out of wedlock?
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) must speak for himself, but we regard the private sector and the private health insurance industry as perfectly legitimate parts of the health service. If it is possible for them to grow and play a bigger part we are perfectly happy for them to do so, but we cannot conceive of any circumstances in which taxpayer funds should be used to enable that to happen.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring introduced the debate in an entertaining knockabout style and with his usual good humour, but I was rather puzzled that, halfway through, he suddenly launched an initiative to stop the NHS being a political football and called for all-party talks on the issue. We have not had an encouraging start, as his speech made precisely that of the NHS. However, if it is possible to get some all-party dialogue going on health, if we are to break certain taboos and accept, for example, that rationing exists, and if we are to debate what the health service can or cannot do and how it is to be funded, we are ready to take part.
  I shall look back to the proposals by which the Government invited the nation to measure their performance at the general election. They pledged that they would bring down waiting lists by 100,000 and maintain that they are making progress towards that figure. They have made progress in bringing down in-patient waiting lists, but unfortunately that has been more than outweighed by an increase in out-patient waiting lists from 295,000 at the time of the general election to 513,000 now. The number of people, and the time for which they are waiting, have grown.
  The folly of all this is demonstrated by the fact that, according to any health service professional to whom one speaks, the waiting list pledge itself was completely misguided, has caused a distortion of clinical priorities in the vast majority of hospitals, and is not the best measure of the progress that the Government are making in the health service.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned cross-party consensus, and then talked about waiting lists. Will he at least accept—so that we can secure as big a majority as possible for this view—that the NHS is helped, and in no way harmed, if people relieve pressure on it by taking out private health insurance?
  Mr. Harvey: I hope that I made it clear that that was my view in my response to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). There is certainly no harm done—indeed, it is welcome—if the private sector can play a part in relieving pressure on the NHS. If people choose to take out private insurance, that is entirely a matter for them and a positive development.
  We believe that the private sector could have a growing role in undertaking work commissioned by the NHS, and there is no reason why the reverse should not happen from time to time. The private sector occasionally needs to fall back on the services of the NHS—[HON. MEMBERS:

  711
  "Frequently."] Yes, frequently—not least in the case of intensive care, which is one of the aspects on which people have focused over the past couple of weeks.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector should also play a part in the training of nurses and doctors, and contribute financially?
  Mr. Harvey: Absolutely. It would be good to see the private sector taking a practical role in training. The idea of private sector contribution to the cost of that is also good in principle, but it is difficult to see how such a charging mechanism would be organised, and we do not know how much it would raise. If a way could be found to make it work, there is no good reason why we should not give it a try.
  The Government have established a National Institute for Clinical Excellence to test the clinical effectiveness— and cost-effectiveness—of drugs. That too is a good idea in principle, but we have major misgivings about the remit, especially as it has been changed by means of a statutory instrument. That has brought into play considerations of affordability, which we consider to be properly in the domain of the Secretary of State and the political community. We think that it is for them to decide what the nation can afford.
  There is a world of difference between cost-effectiveness and affordability. Something can be extremely cost-effective, but very expensive. It is entirely right to establish a panel of experts to decide what is cost-effective, but affordability must ultimately be a political decision. When it comes to deciding what the nation can afford, the buck must stop with Ministers.
  Funding is a major issue that has interested the nation of late. The Government have not been as candid as they should have been about the extra funds that they have invested since coming to office. For the first two years, they stuck to the Conservatives' spending plans. Goodness knows why; I do not for a moment imagine that, in the unlikely event of the Conservatives' having returned to office, they would have stuck to those plans themselves. The Government, however, set themselves an austerity programme, stuck to the Conservatives' targets, and embarked this year on the first of the three years of spending covered by the comprehensive spending review.
  If the Government manage to complete those three years and to spend all that has been promised for the NHS, at the end of the full five years they will just about have spent, year on year, more than the Conservative year-on-year increases. If there is a general election after only four years, however, they will not even have achieved that, and their year-on-year increases will not even be as great as those of the Conservatives.
  I am glad that, over the last couple of weeks, public attention has turned to the proportion of our national income that we spend on the health service. I am pleased that everyone seems to agree that it should increase. We do not keep up with our European competitors, but, more shockingly, we do not even keep up with America. Many people regard the state-funded health system in America as an emergency back-up, a safety net, a last chance if all else fails. Legion are the stories, probably apocryphal, of people in America who are found at the roadside after accidents and who, unless they have a credit card,
  712
  or insurance policy, will not be taken in and cared for, yet the Americans spend 6.5 per cent. of their gross domestic product on that emergency, last-resort, back-stop system. We are floundering at a figure that is variously estimated at between 5.5 and 5.8 per cent. of our GDP, so we must do better.
  Dr. Stoate: I note the hon. Gentleman's point that the Americans spend about 6.5 per cent. of their GDP on their publicly funded system, but does he agree that they get extraordinarily bad value for money in that 45 million Americans have no health care cover of any sort, that one quarter of all bankruptcies in America are due to unpaid health bills and that health outcomes are, in many ways, disappointing, particularly for the richest country in the world?
  Mr. Harvey: I agree. The Americans do not get particularly good value out of either their public or private systems. In total, they spend 14 per cent. of their GDP on the health system. At its best, it is very good, but, overall, I am not sure that it is all that remarkable.
  What was remarkable was the Prime Minister's pledge yesterday that the Government would get spending up to the EU average in the course of five days—[Interruption.] In five years; I beg the House's pardon. What he promised was remarkable enough. Whether he is any more likely to attain it over five years than over five days, I do not know. Certainly, some of his arithmetic seemed highly dubious. Whether he was supposed to say that, was on message and had been cleared to say it, I do not know. It may have been like his fox-hunting pledge, which he gave when under a bit of pressure at Question Time, but it smacked of a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation.
  If the Prime Minister thinks that putting a mere £2 billion a year in over the next five or six years will get us up to the European average, he could not be more wrong, or is he counting these things in the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does? The Chancellor would have us believe that, if we put in £3 billion in the first year, another £3 billion in the second year and another £3 billion in the third year, it makes a glorious total of £18 billion.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Prime Minister's promise. Can we have an assurance that the Liberal Democrats support that promise?
  Mr. Harvey: We do. We wish the Prime Minister well in his efforts to achieve that. If it comes to votes to get the funds in place to do it, he can rely on our support. However, I am still sceptical as to whether he will achieve it.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Did my hon. Friend notice that, towards the end of the Secretary of State's speech, he refused to take interventions? The one matter of substance in his speech was the undertaking to increase spending by 5 per cent.—per cent. of what he did not define. Might it be helpful if my hon. Friend explored what the baseline of the 5 per cent. is and accepted an intervention from the Secretary of State to see whether he could answer that question?
  Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was hoping that the Secretary of State might have cast

  713
  a little more light on the Prime Minister's commitment. I think that the Secretary of State said that there would be an increase of 5 per cent. in real terms. Does that mean 5 per cent. over and on top of normal NHS inflation— that is to say, over and on top of anything that we have heard about to date in any comprehensive spending review? Will the comprehensive spending review that we expect in July factor that all in on top?
  When the Prime Minister says that he will put in £2 billion a year, does he mean that he will put in £2 billion in the first year, continue that into the second year, adding £4 billion in that year, and continue that into the following year, adding another £2 billion, making £6 billion in that year? If so, he had only to consult the Chancellor, who could have explained that that adds up to £42 billion. If they put in £42 billion, they might begin to get somewhere near the European average in five years.
  Dr. Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the Liberal Democrat policy? Does he subscribe to the view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who said on a television programme on which he appeared with me last week that he would be happy for income tax to rise by anything up to 10p in the pound over the next 10 years to pay for Liberal Democrat promises? Is that Liberal Democrat policy?
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman misquotes my hon. Friend, who said that, if we were to reach the European average, the necessary investment would be equivalent to that rate. He was not necessarily advocating such an increase or saying that we could reach the average overnight. However, it will take massive investment to reach.
  It would not make sense to reach the average at once, as the principal investment that we have to make is in staff and personnel, who take time to train. As the Prime Minister said, it takes three or four years to train a nurse. However, if he had recognised that three years ago and started a drive to recruit more nurses, they would have been coming on stream this summer and in post to help cope with any influenza epidemic that might occur next winter.
  Mr. John Burnett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. He is making a powerful point: there is great need for staff and personnel. I draw his attention to the case of one of my constituents—Mrs. Hopkins, of Germansweek—who visited my advice surgery last weekend. She is suffering from frequent bouts of fainting and giddiness, for which her general practitioner referred her to a consultant. The Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust has written to her to say that, although she will have an appointment, she will have to wait 140 weeks. Does my hon. Friend agree that such delays are caused by failure properly to fund the NHS and are an utterly unacceptable national disgrace?
  Mr. Harvey: I can only agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely disgraceful that anyone should have to wait 140 weeks—almost three years—simply to see a consultant. Goodness knows how many weeks after seeing a consultant one would have to wait for any
  714
  operation that the consultant might think necessary. The case that he describes is about the worst that I have heard, and underlines the fact that, whatever progress is being made on in-patient figures is more than counterbalanced by the extra time that people are waiting on out-patient lists. As he says, it is an absolute disgrace.
  In recent years, there has been a staggering decrease in the number of nurses working in the NHS. In 1987, there were 514,600 nurses and midwives working in the NHS; today, there are only 373,000. It is incredible that there should have been such a decrease in only 12 or 13 years. Currently, 15,000 nursing vacancies are being advertised, and we are struggling to fill them.
  A great deal more will have to be done than yesterday's pay increase—welcome though that was—to turn the nursing profession into something that people are attracted to at the start of their career and will stay with loyally throughout their working lives as they try to build careers. Year after year, many pay increases will be required. Better still, if we are to make necessary progress in recruiting nurses, there should be a complete re-evaluation of our views on the nursing profession and of the value that we place on it both in the NHS and in society overall.
  On how pay rises will be paid for, it has been noted that health authorities were given their budgets for the coming year just before Christmas. The Minister has made it clear that the rises will have to be paid for out of those budgets.
  Kali Mountford: Given the hon. Gentleman's comments on nurses and the length and cost of nurse training, will he congratulate the Government and nurses on the number of nurses who have chosen to return to the profession? They are ready to be on the job on the very day of their return.
  Mr. Harvey: I am delighted that some nurses have been attracted back to the job, and of course I congratulate the Government on any nurses whom they have managed to lure back or recruit to the profession. Last year, the Government increased pay for those who are on the starting levels in the nursing profession, and that was a useful start. This year, Ministers are beginning to deal with various anomalies. However, there is much further to go before the nursing profession will look sufficiently attractive to persuade people to spend an entire career in it.
  How will the pay rises be funded? The increases in authority budgets that were announced before Christmas mean that there is enough cash to fund the pay rises, but if they are to be fully funded from those budgets, something else has to give. Will it be progress on waiting lists or the Government's modernisation agenda? Whatever the authorities and trusts sacrifice to fund the pay increases, the result will be slower progress on improving the health service in the way that we all want and more cases of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) mentioned.
  Dr. Brand: Will not the health authorities that received the lowest uplift in their funding for next year find it particularly difficult to pay the salary increases? They will have to make cuts in services rather than just failing to advance them.
  Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are great inequalities between different health

  715
  authorities around the country. I am glad that there is a review of the formulae and I hope that the difficulties faced by rural health authorities in particular will be better recognised. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use formulae that recognise those difficulties better than the English system.
  On top of the difficulties with nursing that we have already dealt with, the Government are spending an increasing amount on agency nurses to make up for the shortfall in NHS nurses. Between 1991 and 1998, spending on agency nurses doubled to £216 million. In the past year, that figure has increased by more than 25 per cent. It now costs the taxpayer more than £273 million to bring in private sector agency nurses, most of whom have been trained in the NHS, to cover NHS vacancies that would not exist if we were paying our nurses properly and recruiting adequate numbers into the profession. That is not good value for the taxpayer.
  The Conservatives have been talking up the benefits and advantages of the private health sector and private insurance. I have made it clear that we think that there should be a mixed economy and that both sectors can play a useful role, but they seem to imagine that it is possible to engineer a massive increase in the number of people taking up private health insurance. There is a competitive market for private health insurance. I am sure that other hon. Members, like me, receive direct mail fliers from health insurance companies almost every week touting their wares and policies.
  There is no reason why there should be a big increase in take-up unless there is a policy to engineer one. There are three possibilities: it might be made compulsory to take out private insurance, there might be a tax incentive, or the NHS might be run down to such a pitiful state that people would be bound to take out private insurance because they would regard it as the only way to get any health cover. If the Conservatives want a financial inducement, we shall oppose them head-on. There is no justification for taxpayer funds that could otherwise be spent on the NHS to bring about the improvements that people want being diverted to induce people who can afford, or are on the verge of being able to afford, private health insurance.
  We know from last year's Budget that there is to be another 1p reduction in income tax from April. We have conducted opinion polling on that, as have some newspapers. The results show that the public do not want a 1p tax cut to be put ahead of getting extra investment into the health service. Nearly 80 per cent. would rather have the money spent on the health service now than on a 1p tax cut in April.
  Our call to the Government—who made promises at the general election and have done so over the past three years, with the Prime Minister making more promises the other day—is that they should get on with carrying out those promises and achieve the target of reaching European average spending. Only then, having achieved that for all to see, should they imagine that taxpayers want to enjoy the dividend of a tax cut. They are putting the wrong value on those matters, and they do not understand what people want. If they do not wake up to that soon, there will be a huge price to pay.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome the opportunity of today's debate. We are all aware of the difficulties facing the NHS. It is important that we discuss them, and that we contrast the Government's attitudes in terms of policy with those of the Opposition.
  At the outset, I should make clear that I am the constituency Member of Parliament of Mrs. Mavis Skeet, whose case received a great deal of coverage in the national press last week. I should make it clear that I do not have the family's permission to go into the details of the case. However, I spoke to the Secretary of State last week about my concerns over the handling of the case. I hope that, with the family's consent, at some point he will make public the outcome of his investigations into her treatment.
  I came into politics to fight to ensure that people such as Mrs. Skeet receive proper treatment. I am sure that most Labour Members, and some Opposition Members, would want to ensure that such problems do not arise. I am driven, in part, by my personal experiences, which I have shared with the House before—my father faced a two-year wait for a heart bypass and died before he got the operation—so I understand how families in such circumstances feel. It will not only be Mrs. Skeet; others will be going through difficulties of this nature.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: With respect, I shall not take interventions. I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute, and the hon. Lady may well have the opportunity to make her own point.
  Let us not deny the fact that the NHS faces serious problems. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, I would not deny that, as we see those problems. Most hon. Members looking at their local health services would accept that there are difficulties. However, those problems have not developed overnight and will not be cured overnight. The problems have occurred over a long period. It is easy to blame previous Governments. When we talk about how the health service is run, however, we should understand that today's policy changes will not impact in many areas for five or 10 years, or more.
  The current difficulties underline elements of Labour's inheritance on health policy and what we faced when we came to power. I want to make clear one or two areas for which I think the previous Government are responsible in terms of the current difficulties and those that we shall no doubt face again in the months and years to come.
  First, the previous Government broke down the national service that we had had since 1948 into numerous competing fragments. We inherited the hugely expensive bureaucracy of the internal market—a wasteful exercise introduced by the Tories, where money that should have been spent on patient care was spent on chasing pieces of paper. Secondly, under the Conservatives, the national health service was heading rapidly in the direction of American-style private medical care. There is no doubt about that. The policies that they introduced included tax breaks for private medicine—mentioned again today—the wholesale privatisation of community care provision and two-tier access, which was clearly the case in my constituency. I have named constituents in the past who were denied certain services that their next-door

  717
  neighbours could get because they happened to have a non-fundholding rather than a fundholding GP. That was the reality of Conservative policies.
  Having spent time talking to health service staff, I know that we had a demoralised staff who were leaving the service in droves—often to go to the private sector, which was expanding under the Tories—because they believed that the NHS had no future.
  I welcome many of the positive steps that the Government have taken to return health to the vision of Bevan and the socialist pioneers to whom I look in terms of where I want the health service to go. If we stick to those principles, the majority of people will support the steps that we take. I welcome the increased funding that the Government have been able to devote to health recently. Indeed, although I suspect that people will feel differently about tax in two months' time, I would be happy for the Chancellor to cash in on the current concerns of people who would be prepared to forgo the reduction in income tax if the money were devoted to the NHS.
  I welcome the proposals in the Health Act 1999, which largely abolish the internal market. The duty to co-operate is common sense and will return the health service to what it was in the beginning. However, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider further the splits in responsibility at local level between the different elements that we inherited? My constituency has seven different elements dealing with health and community care, not including primary care. Many of those bodies could be combined.
  I also welcome the Government's moves to emphasise quality of provision, because I have come across some worrying problems in my work on the Health Committee in recent years. It is early days yet, but I commend the results so far. I also welcome the emphasis on primary care, which was part of Bevan's vision but has never been realised, and the proposals for public health and prevention. That was a non-issue for the Conservative Government, but it is crucial in addressing the problems that people face.
  I welcome the staffing strategy, the recruitment work that the Government have undertaken, and their work on winter pressures. I know that we have recently had some problems, but they would have been far worse without the Government's steps to prepare local agencies to work together. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team know that I welcome the work they have done on bringing the NHS and social services closer. As someone who worked before 1974 in a local authority with a health department, I think that my right hon. Friend should go further and consider full integration of the NHS with local authority social services. He will know that the Health Committee also recently recommended that approach.
  The debate this week has been about more than simple practical proposals. It has been about the fundamental issue of whether we as a society can afford a national health service. The great and good have been wheeled out on both sides. For example, Mr. Roy Lilley suggested at the weekend that we penalise smokers and obese people. He did not mention that obesity and smoking are most common among the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society, as I know from my constituency.
  718
  Private health insurance has also been mentioned, but no thought has been given to the fact that many people with pre-existing conditions, or of a certain age, would never get private cover. What would they do? They are why we have a national health service in the first place, and we should be proud of that. Regardless of people's background, class, income, social status or health problems, they receive equal treatment in the NHS. That is the objective that we set back in the 1940s.
  We have heard consistently during this Parliament the Tories' belief that expanding the private health sector is the only way forward for health provision. Last week, the shadow Secretary of State was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
  "The Conservatives are no longer concerned with the maintenance of the NHS as the primary provider".
  That is on the record in the paper—[Interruption.] The Tories may be sending letters to The Sunday Times, but that quotation is there in print and available in the Library. We know about the Tories and the NHS. They never believed in maintaining the NHS right from the start, but their obsession with the private sector ignores reality.
  My views on the private sector are not based solely on ideology. I am concerned with the practical effects of expanding the private sector. The Select Committee was unanimous in its concern over the private sector's abysmal record in quality of provision. In one instance, I was accused of using strong language, but where I come from we call a spade a spade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will confirm. We say what we mean, and people respect us for it. I was criticised for comments that I made after listening to a man whose wife had been treated in a private hospital. He told me that, when she died, he had to lay out her body because there was no one else to do it. I admit that I was angry about what I consider to be an unforgivable situation. If I had time, I could give other examples of the lack of quality in the private sector. The Opposition take no account of the genuine unease—even within the private sector—about the standards of the care that that sector provides.
  The Select Committee report examined staffing levels, and our finding was clear: staff haemorrhaged from the NHS are going to the private sector, where they get more money and sometimes enjoy better conditions of service. We concluded that expanding the private sector merely removes staff from the national health service. It is nonsense, therefore, to suggest that it is somehow helpful to expand the private sector. It is helpful only if, for political reasons, the NHS is to be run down. That is the Tory party's approach.
  I urge the Government to go in the opposite direction and bring about, at the very least, the complete separation of the NHS from the private sector. I should be interested to find out what impact there would be on waiting lists if part-time NHS consultants worked full time and cared for people on the basis of need and not ability to pay.
  Finally, I want to let the House into a secret: before last Friday morning, I had never heard of Lord Winston, even though I know most of the great and good in the national health service. Moreover, the man from BBC national radio who telephoned me on Friday morning for a comment had never heard of him either, so it was not just a matter of me being a thick Yorkshireman.
  No one is sure of what Lord Winston meant or said, but he appeared to suggest that a middle road—some sort of third way, perhaps—existed between the state system

  719
  and the private sector. I believe that, in this instance, there is no such third way. Either one believes in the national health service concept and subscribes to its principles, or one does not. The Tories have shown today that the Government believe in that concept, and that they do not.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) rather wrecked his credibility with his display of ignorance about Lord Winston. However, I shall follow his example and be brief.
  The trouble with the speech by the Secretary of State was that it offered nothing to the public. The House should recognise that people are genuinely worried about the present state of the health service. The right hon. Gentleman rejected all new thinking and ideas—a ridiculous approach to adopt. The Government must accept that they alone are to blame for the criticism heaped on them in the past few weeks.
  No party could have done more to exploit the inevitable difficulties that occur in the health service than the Labour party in opposition. I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security for six years. My abiding memory is that the Labour Opposition opposed all changes in the service—even the introduction of general managers, which the Labour Government have now adopted. It is a bit rich, therefore, for the Secretary of State to say that he believes in good management of the national health service.
  However, that Labour Opposition did more than just attack the then Conservative Government. They also raised the public's expectations. Their promise was specific: vote Labour, and the problems of the health service would be ended. That message has now been radically altered. The promise is that if people vote Labour, the problems may be over in 10 years' time. The angry reaction to that change of position is not surprising.
  The issue today is whether we continue down this dismal road of political recrimination and simply continue the party battle of slogans, or whether we have a serious debate on a better way forward for the health service. I have no doubt that that is what the public want us to do. There may be some very important interest groups in the health service, but what the public—the patients—want should be crucial. I think that the public want a serious debate about how to achieve better health care.
  I should mention that I am chairman of Numark, an industrial provident society with more than 1,300 community pharmacies. Having declared that interest, I intend to speak not about pharmacy, however tempting it may be, but more generally.
  In the years since 1947, the health service has developed steadily under Governments of both colours. When the Prime Minister says that today more patients are being treated, more operations are being carried out and more hospitals are being built, that is precisely the case that I put forward 15 years ago. It was the case that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) put forward when he was Secretary of State for Health, as, I am sure, did my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) when he was Under-Secretary of State for Health. It was true then and it is true today. However, it does not answer the fundamental question of whether enough patients are being treated or enough operations carried out.
  720
  This country has the best-value health service in Europe. By that I mean that we get more value for the money that we use than any other health service that I know of. That is a tribute to the doctors, nurses, staff and managers of the national health service. However, running a cost-effective health service is no longer enough. The public expect more, and I think that they are right to do so. The most important principle of the health service is that no one should be deprived of health care because of lack of income. Whatever other judgments are used on who will have health care, the question of a man or woman's income does not enter the equation. That remains fundamental. No one wants a system in which people are excluded from health care provision because of lack of income.
  Increasingly, people feel that in addition they should not be deprived of self-evidently important health care because of a lack of resources in the health service. The dilemma was most famously put by Enoch Powell, who said that any health service faces the problem of infinite demand meeting finite resources. That is the dilemma of the health service in this country and anywhere else. No system is perfect; equally, it does not have to be as imperfect as ours. It is clear from the cases that have been widely reported over the past few weeks that people who should be treated are not being treated. No one, whatever their political party, wants that.
  The real question is how to bring those extra resources into the health service. How do we ensure that those resources are best used? The issue should be about how to achieve the best possible health care for the maximum number of people. In achieving that, we should consider all the options. That is where I quarrel with the Government. It is not written in stone that general taxation is the only means whereby money can be raised for the health service. That is not a fundamental principle of the health service—it is simply the way that it has always been.
  I remember talking to Margaret Thatcher about the health issue before the 1987 election. She thought that a royal commission on health was the way forward. That was unusual, because Margaret Thatcher was not renowned for appointing royal commissions—I could put it more strongly than that. In the event, no commission was appointed, but today, three years after the 1997 election, the case for an inquiry—at least—into the financing of the health service is overwhelming. A royal commission or some other independent and authoritative inquiry would allow us to consider all the options by which we could bring extra resources to health.
  We can continue to make the health service entirely dependent on general taxation. That seems to be the approach taken by the Prime Minister, and by the Secretary of State, who says that there is no alternative to public spending, which will bring us up to European standards, not now, but in six to eight years' time. There are strong arguments against that course. Of all the health slogans that I can think of, "The health service is safe in the hands of the Treasury" would certainly be the oddest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe is sitting behind me, so I shall be gentle, but the idea that the Treasury is populated by kindly Ministers and officials eager to resource health care is somewhat fanciful. Public spending has not resourced the health service adequately to date. That fact is a commentary not on the present or the previous Governments, but on all the Governments of the past half century.

  721
  If we make health an overwhelming public spending priority, other priorities such as education, law and order, defence and pensions will suffer. To rely exclusively on general public spending is a triumph of hope over experience. We should look at other options. One possibility is a health tax, which might have the advantage of creating some connection between the taxpayer and the health provider. Another option is to raise revenue by some form of personal insurance to add to public funding from tax. Many European countries already use that system, and it is both foolish and depressing to reject that prospect out of hand. It is wrong to suggest that that system would Americanise—or even privatise—the health service.
  In Germany, I am told, there have been many television pictures of patients in Britain lying on trolleys and so on. Newspaper comment in Germany has been not about how wonderful the British health service is, but about how the Germans do not want our system of shortages. We deceive ourselves if we think that the rest of the world regards the method by which we finance our health service as the way it should be done. People in other countries may well say that our doctors, nurses and other staff are dedicated professionals who make the most of every penny. I hope that they do, and they would be right to say so, but no one advocates moving towards our system of finance.
  I fear that, if we do not seek new paths, in 10 years' time we shall still be debating these problems in the same depressing way. There is no doubt that the old national health service has achieved a vast amount and, having served as Health Minister for six years, I certainly applaud that. But we need change. We need a new national health service, possibly run as a separate commission, but certainly receiving new and consistent streams of income. Such a service could achieve so much more. The Government have turned their face against change, and I deplore that. If they do not alter that stance, my party will rise to the challenge. The present crisis, following past crises, provides an opportunity to think anew.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: In view of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), perhaps I should point out that I have known Lord Winston for many years. I first met him in 1984, when he was Robert Winston and I was a Member of the House, helping to talk out a Bill sponsored by Enoch Powell, which would have stopped research into the human embryo and thus into infertility. At that time, I thought that Robert Winston was a brilliant clinician and, having considered the events of the past few days, I still think so, although he is now a politician—we are led to believe.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has left the Chamber, because I quite enjoyed the earlier knockabout over his and the Opposition's perceptions of NHS funding. When he got down to his three ways to save the NHS, which I understand have been expressed in a letter from the Conservative party to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Members in other parties, he mentioned two points in particular. The first was that the Conservatives wanted long-term
  722
  funding of the NHS. The second was that they wanted increased funding year by year. That was not our experience during the last five years of the previous, Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it was."]
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that the Conservatives had built hospitals every year. Under the Tory Government, they did not build hospitals for many years. What really happened was that they cut back savagely on capital expenditure in the NHS—not £10 million or £15 million but hundreds of millions of pounds. That was the amount that they cut from capital expenditure during their last three years in office. Consequently, my right hon. Friends who have held the position of Secretary of State for Health have had to use the private finance initiative to restore some of the savage cuts to building in the NHS. For the Conservatives to say that they built hospitals is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Martlew indicated assent.
  Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend agrees. He and I were involved in many debates on the NHS.
  At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, the hon. Member for Woodspring said:
  "I think what we are proposing will revolutionise private health insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s."
  When the Labour Government came to office in 1997, they had to put right many wrongs; for example, the case of my constituents who had been robbed by going into private pension schemes. The Government had to set up schemes so that people could get back the money that had been taken off them by private pension plans. After the Conservatives were defeated in 1997, I thought that they would have learned something, but they have learned nothing from the way they ran the Government—getting citizens into a mess.
  In relation to the announcement that was made just before Christmas, my own health authority—the Rotherham health authority—received an increase of 7.28 per cent. That is a real-terms increase of 4.6 per cent. It is the best increase for many years—since long before May 1997. That real increase will do something about the real problems in our area.
  During the past few weeks, we have seen vested interests at play in the NHS and in politics. We know that the Opposition have a vested interest; in theory, it is to oppose. They claim that the NHS is not just in acute crisis, but that it has been brought to its knees. I do not believe that, nor does anyone working in the NHS.
  Since 1997, the Government have been changing the way money is spent in the NHS. They have built up public health services and supported primary care groups. They have spent money on services that were formerly poor relations in the NHS. They have deliberately done all that to try to improve public health so that we can hope that, in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, there is not the need for an acute sector of the size it is today.
  Our debates on the national health service always concentrate on hospitals and repairing people who have been damaged or who have become the victims of circumstances, but they are not sensible debates about promoting public health. The Government have rightly targeted the biggest killers, such as cancer and

  723
  heart disease. They have spent money on those diseases, but they have been criticised for doing so. I think that such criticism is wrong.
  The Government have reduced waiting lists. I do not care what anyone says about that. Waiting lists peaked in April 1998 and they have fallen by 18 per cent. since then. Hon. Members can come to the Chamber to say how long X and Y have waited, but they should talk to the people who are waiting for less time now than they were in April 1998. They will say that the Government are doing the right thing.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barron: I might give way in a minute.
  The Government are improving joint action between local health authorities and local authorities to improve care for people in the community with disabilities and to improve mental health care. We have waited years for such an agenda and for joint co-operation. Money has gone into that as well as into the modernisation of the national health service.
  Since 1948, the health service has been riven by an internal debate between hospitals and general practitioners and between the acute sector and primary care. The Government are taking those issues on. Such action is perceived to hurt some people and especially those who work in the acute sector. They do not like what is happening. Their empires are being realigned, but the Government are absolutely right to realign them and I will defend them when they do. When we hear from the vested interests and organisations involved in hospital care, we must always remember that the Government's aim is to improve public health and the health of the nation.
  The Government are modernising the national health service. None of the new money—as much as it is—that is going into health authorities such as my own is being given to them so that they can continue to spend in the way they did in the past. Packages tell them that they must spend differently. The Government are also making the health service more modern by improving information technology and using such wonderful technology for the general good.
  The Government are improving clinical practice. They are not just putting money into the national health service, but are making sure that it is spent properly. Let us forget about the cost of the private sector; let us instead examine the reference costs on which the Government reported a few weeks ago. They considered the actual costs of certain procedures in the health service and clinical outcomes, so that, after 50 years of its existence, we can begin to have an idea of what goes on in the NHS.
  A press release in the Library provides three examples of reference costs. It shows how we should be able to ensure better care and get the most effective use of resources. I have suffered from lower back pain over the years, and the press release shows that one course of treatment for that can cost £638 in some hospitals, but that the costs rise elsewhere to £1,578. We ought to know why.
  Day care for rheumatoid arthritis can cost £183 in some hospitals but £370 in others. The national health service should provide that service, but there should not be such a difference in costs. The costs of bronchial pneumonia
  724
  emergency admissions range from the lowest figure of £828 up to the highest, £1,617. Wherever it comes from, that is taxpayers' money that is spent on health care, but there are great cost discrepancies in the national health service. The Government are absolutely right to look into such matters, which concern people who work in the health service because such examination requires them to consider their costs, their use of resources and their clinical effectiveness. Numerous measures are being taken to improve clinical effectiveness.
  I know from my experience in this House that any Member can go to the Library and read reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Commission about expenditure in our health service and many other areas of public life. Those reports reveal extraordinary divergences of cost and expenditure.
  I remember a report about procurement in the NHS, which was published about four years ago. I have it in my office. It told how a hospital, which was not identified, bought a syringe drive for £800 from a manufacturer in October of the year concerned. The following March—in the same financial year—another department in the same hospital bought a syringe drive from the same supplier for £1,036. That department was trying to get rid of its annual budget by the end of March because in April it was to get another departmental budget. The report showed that procurement practices in the NHS are costing us tens of millions of pounds per annum.
  I am all in favour of the Government putting new money into the NHS, and I am pleased that my health authority has received a big increase of 4.66 per cent. in real terms for the next financial year. However, I am also concerned to ensure that the health service is spending money properly in the most cost-effective and clinically effective way. I am unconvinced that it is doing so.
  I turn now to a vested interest. The Secretary of State quoted a letter that was sent to The Times but which was not published today. In that letter, clinicians were saying that the situation was not as bad as it was being painted in the media. I do not think that the situation is that bad; nor do most people who know the national health service.
  A front page article in The Times today contains a quote that I assume is connected with the increase that nurses have received this year. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) said, nurses received a big increase this year and last year, which is aimed to sustain nurses and to get more of them back into the NHS. We should all be pleased about that increase. The quote in The Times is from Dr. Ian Bogle, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who said:
  "Doctors' pay is now seriously out of line with other professionals. It needs to be restored to the appropriate level."
  When I read that, it took me back to the years before I came to this House—the '70s—when the then Labour Government were giving flat-rate increases to people who were poorly off because they wanted to try to make work pay for them. At that time others asked, "What about our differentials?" I hope that I have not misquoted Dr. Bogle or the BMA, but if that is their line, we have returned to the argument about differentials.
  We should all—doctors and nurses included—be concerned about having a health service that provides for this nation. We should forget about vested interests in society, and some of the vested interests in the NHS ought to be removed. We ought to be improving clinical effectiveness and spending resources better.

  725
  Conservative Members sit there smiling because they have been in government and they refused to start the modernisation that this Government have introduced. This Government certainly have my support.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: This is the third time in less than 12 months that I have taken part in a health service debate. I therefore hope to make it my shortest speech because I want to hear the remarks of many of the other hon. Members who wish to take part in this short debate.
  Looking back on what I said before, I find that I warned about the impending sense of crisis in the national health service. I said that unless the Government shook themselves out of their complacency, they would take us into a series of winter crises like those that we have seen before. It gives me no pleasure to say that that is exactly what has happened because the response on previous occasions has been a combination of complacency and slogans—until the Secretary of State now finds himself in a serious position.
  It is certainly true, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, that we have experienced winter crises before. That is all the more reason for predicting them when we realise that things are going wrong. It was no remarkable insight on my part or that of the other hon. Members who spoke in those earlier debates to talk of an impending crisis. Any Member of Parliament who kept in touch with the NHS would have received repeated warnings about the mounting problems, mainly financial, in health authority after health authority.
  Long before this winter began, every Member of Parliament was receiving an increased burden of correspondence from people complaining about the steadily deteriorating service that they were receiving. The Government's response was a party political debate. There was almost a complete absence of constructive long-term policy to address the problem. I am not sure that they are accepting even now that they have had a bad winter, after a predictable increase in flu cases hit a vulnerable system. Having listened to them, I think that they have returned with more complacency and slogans for the future.
  Mr. Roger Casale: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way only because of the pressure of time. I usually enjoy giving way.
  I shall outline why I think we face the present crisis, what the short-term causes have been and what the immediate response should be. I believe that the principal underlying cause of the present problems is financial. Indeed, it is a financial crisis. As I have said before, the Government got the money wrong. They have set about tackling public expenditure problems in a most peculiar way, which has damaged the health service most especially.
  It is not true that the Government followed for the first two years the spending plans that a Conservative Government would have followed. That is a slogan, but it
  726
  is untrue. We had annual spending rounds during which Secretaries of State for Health discussed with the Treasury the current situation in the health service and what it would be reasonable to spend in the light of economic circumstances during the next year.
  I do not believe that any Conservative Secretary of State for Health ever accepted that in years two and three there would be handed out what had been pencilled in during previous years. It was the now candidate for mayor of London, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who had the unfortunate experience while Secretary of State for Health of being told that that was exactly what would happen to him. If a Major Government had been returned to office, I do not believe that we would have contemplated anything of that sort.
  The idea that health service expenditure would be fixed for three years in that way and never revised has been addressed only in the final years of this Parliament. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) has said, if the Government stick to their present plans they will, at the end of this Parliament, get back to a percentage increase in NHS spending that matches that of the former Conservative Government. That illustrates what was wrong; the Government made no attempt to address what was going on.
  It is not true that the Government were constrained by public sector debt problems, for example. They simply went to a slogan-based approach to public spending that bore no relation to the needs of the NHS.
  What has been the Government's reaction so far? I watched the Prime Minister on the Frost programme, and it seems that the Government have come up with another slogan. It seems that £21 billion is now discredited. I shall not repeat the excellent description of the way in which that ridiculous figure was arrived at that the hon. Member for North Devon gave the House. No one outside the House believes that the figure is an honest description of the Labour party's spending plans. Lord Winston is not the only one with doubts.
  We now have not a three-year but a five-year target. When the next three years have passed, we shall have expenditure on the NHS that equals average percentage GDP across the European Union. That target does not address the needs of the service or priorities within government. It is a slogan that has already been produced for the next election campaign. Whether it is realised depends on many unforeseeable events, most of which are utterly beyond the Government's control. To what extent will our GDP grow over the next few years? Many European Governments are trying to reduce their health expenditure. To what extent will their GDPs grow? What rate of increase in expenditure will in practice be the outturn in other European countries?
  At present, no one can seriously guess what the average percentage of GDP spent on health will be throughout the European Union. Nobody knows what our GDP will be. We have only a press release for a Frost interview, not a serious and fresh look at the funding needs of the NHS. The police service, which has also been badly dealt with by the Government, and the education service, which thought that it was the first priority, have already started saying, "What does this mean for us?" If EU average expenditure on health races ahead or if United Kingdom GDP dips, what will happen to our claims for our needs? The Government's approach is absurd.

  727
  The Government should not adhere to their present three-year comprehensive spending review without revisiting it. It was a dreadful mistake to give up annual spending rounds, and the NHS is one of the victims. It is impossible to set in stone arbitrary targets for spending and not allow the Secretary of State to revisit them. I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will stick to their published plans for this year, next year and the year after, whatever the next comprehensive spending plan produces.
  The Prime Minister had the nerve to say, correctly, that the problems of the NHS should be tackled by a combination of money and reform. I think that we are all agreed upon that. Quite a few Conservative Members have taken part in various attempts at reform in the past, and reform is further needed. The difficulty is that the Government's approach to reform so far has been essentially slogan-based and extremely political. It is a rather short-term reaction to what they inherited. When genuine new ideas are put forward for the medium or longer term, the Government are deeply resistant to contemplating any fresh look at how the health service might be financed or run.
  Lord Winston said that the Government have not told the truth about the abolition of the internal market. Only the Labour party calls it the internal market. I am glad to say that the Government do not tell the truth when they claim that they have abolished the former arrangements. They have kept the purchaser-provider divide and much of the management information. They tell the hon. Member for Wakefield that they have abolished the internal market. Actually, they still have it in place. In fact, they are messing about with it in a somewhat ill thought-out way. I believe that when the Government's reforms are handed over, they will not be in a state of perfection. We made dramatic changes to the way in which the NHS was run and it could reasonably be expected that there would be continued evolution from where we were—but evolution was certainly required.
  The purchaser-provider split gives distinct people in the health service, particularly GP practices, health authorities and advisers to patients, the chance to question what health needs are most dominant locally and how best to commission the highest standard of care delivery. That is what purchasing the service means. Someone examines the greatest priority need and decides how to use resources to meet it.
  Providers are able to respond to demands. Slogans such as "Let us go for co-operation and not competition" have been used as an excuse for inhibiting the ability to switch from one source to another so that those involved might have a choice in how they best provide the service in their locality. That should not have happened. I have talked in the past about the replacement of GP fundholding with primary care trusts. It was a retrograde step, which has reduced the role of GPs.
  NHS Direct was set up far too rapidly. The new Secretary of State was dominated by consumerism when he first took office. I do not mind being dominated by that, but NHS Direct may or may not work. It is a rather ill-tried concept. Money is being put into it when funding is not obviously readily available. The danger is that that will increase expectations of, and demands on, the service without proving to be an effective way forward. It is costing money and staff at a time when that expenditure could be better directed elsewhere by others in the service.
  728
  I shall comment briefly on other reactions to the crisis. The nurses' pay settlement has been mentioned. I am glad that the Government stick with the review body system, which they used so to dislike and which they inherited from the Conservative Government. Of course, it is nice to be able to implement a review body award in full straight away. The Government make the point that we did not do so and that we used to phase awards. We phased them because we used to have regard to the ability of the service to afford the pay increase that was to be introduced.
  We always implemented review body awards in full. However, it would have been irresponsible to say to health authorities, "We are now going to implement the pay award in full when we know that you do not have the funds." The Government, who panicked over the weekend about the health service, have done just that. They believe that, as it is in local areas that they will carry the consequences of a diminished ability to deliver the service, they can have their press release now about how they are implementing pay increases in full and straight away.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said most of what I wished to say about the longer term, and I have taken up my time speaking about the shorter term, but I could not put it better than my right hon. Friend has already done.
  Every time an Opposition Member speaks about change, we are accused of wanting to privatise the NHS. That sterile argument is ridiculous. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made it clear that we are committed to the NHS, to its principles and to increased expenditure on it. We wish to explore ways in which the resources available to health care as a whole can be increased. Some suggestions are ill thought-out. I do not approve of the American system, and under the continental system, Governments must be careful about the costs that they impose on employers and hence on employment, with the prospect of causing unemployment.
  We favour an imaginative look at alternative ways of funding health care. We have consistently supported partnership with the private sector. The Liberal Democrats, in the shape of the hon. Member for North Devon, were more than usually prepared to concede that expanding the private sector would ease the pressure on the NHS.
  Labour Members argue that if the private sector were allowed to grow, it would compete with the NHS for staff, so we should not even try to contemplate new resources coming into the health service from outside general taxation, because that would increase competition for doctors and nurses. That argument is fatuous and could be used against the expansion of resources in practically every other sector of the economy.
  The Prime Minister said on Sunday that of course his Government were in favour of partnership with the private sector. He seems to have lost touch with his own party, as well as with the state of affairs in the NHS. One has only to listen to the present Secretary of State and the previous one, and hear of experiences of attempts to develop further partnership with the private sector, to know that the Labour party is still marked by deep and bitter hostility to the idea that we should source health care other than from the national health service, financed by general taxation.

  729 ery other developed country in the world has found that a sterile approach. At a time when the Labour party has got into its first health service crisis, does not know why and has no policy for getting out of it—apart from a few slogans—it should be more receptive to the original and constructive propositions being put forward by the Opposition.
  6.2 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: It always gives me great pleasure to take part in health debates: I am one of the few Members who still has personal contact with the NHS, as I still do some medical surgeries in general practice.
  We have heard some extraordinary statements today. The one from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) takes the biscuit. He tried to explain that he phased in the pay awards when he was Secretary of State because the health authorities could not afford to pay them. Of course they could not—the previous Government did not give them the money. Had the Government given health authorities the 6.8 per cent. average that we have given, they would have been able to afford decent pay awards for decent staff.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Dr. Stoate: I shall give way in a moment.
  To cool the temper of the debate, I shall try to establish whether there is a genuine crisis in the NHS. I shall do so by reference to my own experience. As the House knows, I am a general practitioner. This morning I contacted my local health trust to find out what was happening. It is indeed under severe strain, among other reasons because it is 92 nurses—about 13 per cent. of the nurse complement—short.
  Why are health trusts short of nurses? Because they cannot get trained nurses. Why can they not get trained nurses? Because there are not enough trained nurses in the health service. They are doing their best to put that right, as are the Government, but it is nonsense to suppose that we can produce trained nurses out of a hat.
  The idea that complementing the health service by using the private sector would solve the problem is even greater nonsense. The same number of trained nurses would be split between two hospitals—the national health hospital, which would be struggling to keep them, and the private hospital, which would be struggling to poach them. It is fairly obvious that there would be winners and losers, but we cannot stretch the number of nurses, unless we want them to do double shifts and work 16 hours a day.
  Mr. Gillan rose—
  Dr. Stoate: I shall give way later, but I want to make progress first.
  It is impossible to get more out of our dedicated staff. That applies not just to nurses, but to professions allied to medicine, including technicians, and of course doctors. If doctors are doing coronary artery bypass grafts down the road at the private hospital, they are not doing them in the NHS hospital. The idea that twice as many coronary artery
  730
  bypass grafts could be done if the private ward down the road were opened does not accord with the facts, because the same surgeons work in both the private sector and the NHS.
  When I refer patients for surgery, they often ask me whether they can go privately. The answer is yes, they can go privately, but they will see the same consultant and get the same treatment. And guess what? If they get the treatment privately, the consultant whom they see will not be in the NHS hospital. We cannot have it both ways. The idea of expanding the private sector as some miraculous panacea will not do the business.
  We heard tell of Lord Winston's comments. Lord Winston is an honourable and decent physician, and he has a point of view, but I cannot agree with it. Consultants are feeling frustrated and let down. As has been pointed out, the reason is that the Government's health reforms, putting primary care in the driving seat, threaten some interest groups. The reforms threaten the monopolies of certain physicians and specialists, who are seeing some of their power put back into primary care, where doctors, nurses, social service staff and others are making decisions on what constitutes the best health care for their area, in conjunction with health improvement programmes, the Commission for Health Improvement and the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. All that will improve health care, but may well damage some personal empires and private interests in the health service. I understand that view, although I disagree with it, but to sensationalise the position is quite wrong.
  We also heard it said that we need to increase health resources to the European average. That is certainly a target, but we must be careful to compare like with like. In the UK, NHS spending and private health spending together represent about 6.8 per cent. of gross domestic product. The European average is about 8.8 per cent. of GDP—about 2 per cent. more. However, if we analyse those systems, we find that they are much more bureaucratic than ours.
  In the 1960s and 1970s the NHS used to spend 3 to 4 per cent. of its total budget on administration and bureaucracy. The Conservatives managed to increase that to 6 per cent. by introducing their market reforms, which increased administration costs, if not clinical costs. In most European systems, the administration costs are far higher—10 per cent. in some cases. In America, administration costs are even higher, and can reach 12 or 15 per cent. If that money is stripped out, the European average of 8.8 per cent. of GDP is closer to 7.8 per cent, which is not so very far above our 6.8 per cent.
  I am not arguing that the NHS has enough money. No hon. Member believes that—it clearly does not have enough money. Everyone in the House believes that we need to spend more. There is no argument about that. The question is how we do it.
  I listened closely to suggestions from the Opposition about how we could increase the contribution of the private sector. Let us assume that there are enough doctors and nurses, and concentrate on funding. Various alternatives have been proposed, and it is unfair for the Opposition to claim that the Government have not thought them through. The Government have considered them carefully.

  731
  The alternatives are compulsory insurance or voluntary insurance. Both have costs. Compulsory insurance is merely a stealth tax. If people are told that they must have private insurance, that is the same as taxation. Where is the advantage in that? We might as well pay for the service out of general taxation. If people are urged to have voluntary insurance, something different will happen. People will say, "If I'm going to pay voluntarily for health insurance, I want something more in return than the bloke down the road, who doesn't have it."
  That will create a huge split in the service and a massive two-tier system. I do not believe that the British people's sense of fair play would allow that. There are far greater problems. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the people who need health insurance— those with chronic illnesses and pre-existing conditions— will not get health insurance.
  I should like to see the health insurance company that would take on someone with chronic diabetes, renal failure and eye problems. It would be crazy if it did, and I am sure that actuarial advisers would say that that was a bad bet, in the same way as insurance companies will not take on a young driver with four convictions for drunk driving. They do not want to know such people, and they will not want to know people with chronic health problems. If, however, private health insurance companies were forced to take those people on, it would merely force up the premiums for everyone else, and we would be back where we started. People will not want to pay hugely inflated premiums. Private health insurance simply does not cut the mustard. It is not fair for Conservative Members to claim that we have not thought the matter through. We have considered it for many years.
  I want to comment on the suggestion that the health service has deteriorated rapidly since the Labour party took office. When I qualified in medicine 20 years ago, our health service was the envy of the world. Nobody challenged that slogan. Twenty years on, however, we are led to believe that we have the worst system in Europe— a health service that is even worse than Poland's. For 18 of those 20 years, the national health service was in the hands of the Tory party; it has been in the hands of the Labour party for only two years or so. That sets alarm bells ringing and makes people wonder what happened. Could it be that the previous Government were not especially interested in preserving the health service? Perhaps they liked the idea of the slow decline of the NHS into a second-rate service; perhaps it served their purpose. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) read out The Sunday Times article, which outlined the wishes of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for the NHS, the matter began to become clear. Perhaps the hon. Member for Woodspring does not want the NHS to be the primary provider in the new century.
  I want to consider the flu epidemic. I shall not speak for too long because other hon. Members want to contribute, but most of the media interest has sprung from the so-called flu epidemic. Frankly, I am not sure whether there is a flu epidemic—and I do not even care, because the answer depends on the way in which one measures an epidemic. A traditional measurement is 400 sufferers per 10,000 visiting a general practitioner in one week. However, nowadays, more options are open to those who suffer from flu. They can visit their pharmacist, phone NHS Direct, go to casualty, speak to a neighbour or take
  732
  home remedies. Many people are far better informed and do not go to their GP. However, the people who visit their doctor with flu are more ill than in previous years. There are far more cases of genuine flu rather than the flu-like symptoms of previous years. Patients are more ill, need far more treatment and take longer to get over the illness. Some people have taken three or four weeks to recover.
  This morning, I saw a lady who was very ill through flu complications. In previous years, I would have sent her to hospital. However, the Government have made a real advance: for the first time, I had an option. I could tell that lady that she did not need to go to hospital because we could manage her condition at home with proper nursing, physiotherapy, and through involving social services. For the first winter I can remember, we can manage that patient at home on an acute basis. The NHS is well prepared for the crisis. I turned up and said what needed to be done. In a few minutes, we took action, the services were provided and the lady could be looked after at home, where she wanted to be. The NHS is thus more modern and better prepared than some hon. Members claim.
  I want to consider flu injections. Much research shows that flu injections work, although they are not perfect. However, there are two provisos. The injections need to be targeted at vulnerable groups and we need to increase the herd immunity of the population. I hate to refer to hon. Members as a herd, but the description fits the concept of immunity. Those needs mean vaccinating more widely. The Government should consider carefully widening the net for flu jabs in an epidemic year. That means targeting not only all those who are at risk but their carers. I suggest targeting those who are over 65 rather than over 75, and injecting crucial care workers and others who perform an essential service in society. If a carer is sick with flu, it is a tragedy not only for the carer but the person who is cared for. The Government should consider widening the availability of flu immunisation to cover far more people. We can thus spare the NHS significant strain. If it is true that the NHS is under strain as a result of the flu bug, it is also true that much of the problem would disappear if it was controlled.
  The NHS ain't broke, but it needs fixing. It comprises a dedicated group of staff: doctors, nurses, staff in the professions allied to medicine, managers and others do a splendid job in difficult circumstances. We should pay tribute to them because they keep the NHS going. Clearly, we must do something to provide more resources for the NHS. The Government are honest and open in admitting that we need more money and in holding a debate on the source of the funding. For all the reasons that I and other hon. Members have given, privatising more of the health service or increasing private insurance will not provide what we want. We need a modern health service for this century. Privatisation and private health insurance are not the answer; we require a better-funded public health service. I will leave the calculations to the Chancellor and his colleagues because that is their field, but I call for greater funding in future.
  If Conservative Members want to reform a bankrupt and outdated institution, they need look no further than their party. I wonder whether the private sector would be interested in buying it from them.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I want to talk about money and pick up on the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made. I also want to show that the way in which we fund the health service is largely an historical accident, and not replicated in any other country in the world.
  The source of money in any society is its citizenry. However a service is funded—through insurance or taxes—the people of a country are the only source of money. However, it is easier to raise money for a purpose such as the national health service if the funds available are numerous and varied. If there are several pots from which to draw money, the strain is far less than when the entire burden is placed on one source: in the case of the NHS, taxation.
  Mr. Casale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I shall not give way at all.
  The method of funding the NHS in this country came about in an arbitrary manner. Beveridge, who produced his report in 1942, tackled the NHS only briefly. None the less, he commented that
  "previous contribution—
  by which he meant previous insurance contribution—
  "is the ideal, better even than free service supported by the taxpayer."
  Bevan devised the idea that the service should be funded only by the taxpayer. In a recent history of the NHS by Geoffrey Rivett, he stated that
  "few other countries, outside the Eastern bloc, followed the … route"
  that Britain took. However, even Nye Bevan recognised that the NHS could survive only if it leant on the private sector. He realised that he could not afford to pay consultants to work in the NHS for the money that was necessary to engage their services. He permitted them to work privately and allowed pay-beds in NHS hospitals. He said:
  "I stuffed their mouths with gold."
  In other words, he bought off consultants. Labour Members know that that is true. For some Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), to talk of the private sector as though it were evil or inimical to the NHS is not only stupid but unhistorical. The NHS has changed little, and continues to depend fundamentally on a cross-subsidy from private patients, which enables it to have consultants' services at cut prices.
  Bevan invented the principle that the health service should be funded almost exclusively by taxpayers. As Labour Members know, he and the rest of the Labour Cabinet fell out about that because even the Labour Cabinet that introduced the NHS favoured prescription charges and charges for spectacles. Many supported charging for hospital stays. Even the Labour Government who introduced the NHS believed that it could not survive on taxpayers' funding alone.
  When Nye Bevan resigned, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who was a witness to all those
  734
  events and is in the Chamber now, I think because I told him that I would be quoting him—said, most interestingly:
  "On this question of 'principle' of a free health service, it is nonsense. There are many national scandals it would be costly to correct. This is not a matter of principle, but to the contrary it is a practical matter. There is only one test we can apply and it is an overall one: 'with what we have and can get by way of revenue, how can we lay it to the best advantage of those who need it most?'"
  Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would quote from the diary. It was from this seat that I heard Aneurin make his resignation speech. If the right hon. Gentleman reads a little further, he will see that I was in favour of increasing income tax to finance the service. Perhaps he will do me the justice of quoting what I wrote 49 years ago.
  Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and my purpose in warning him that I would quote him was intended to enable him to be here if he wanted. His practical approach of all those years ago contrasts sharply with the dogmatic approach of his party's Front Benchers in today's debate. The irony is that Bevan—who resigned in 1950 and was regarded as an outcast, at least by the Labour Cabinet and even by much of the Labour party—subsequently became a hero, and the idea that the health service had to be funded from taxpayers' money alone was raised to the status of a dogma. That dogma, I am afraid, has dogged the debate ever since.
  In 1949, the health service absorbed 3.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Today, that figure is still under 6 per cent. Over 50 years, there has been a minimal increase in the percentage of GDP dedicated to the health service as people—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is crying about. As every Member of the House knows, this country contrasts sharply with most others where health services have not been funded exclusively by taxpayers. Let me cite figures that appeared in The Times yesterday: Britain spends £889 per head of population; France, £1,433; and Germany, £1,634. We have heard that the United States spends twice the proportion of GDP that we do, but it may astound Labour Members to know that 43 per cent. of its health spending was spent by the public sector in 1993 and it is likely that that figure has increased substantially. That means that the United States public health sector spends more per head of population than the British Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) shakes his head, but it is so. Getting on for 50 per cent. of health spending in the United States is spent by the Government. If that is divided by the population, the figure is more than we ourselves spend.
  I want to get on to the point about diversity of sources. In the Netherlands, 68 per cent. of health spending comes from social health insurance; 14 per cent. from private insurance; and only 10 per cent. from taxes. The insularity of the Labour party shocks me, as does the idea that a country that is only a few miles away has a system that must self-evidently be rotten or imperfect. The Secretary of State said that he did not want to look at Germany because things did not work there. That must be news to the Germans, but, for the record, about 14 per cent. of health spending in Germany comes from the Government. Here is the appalling fact for us all to face: not only is the

  735
  NHS not regarded as the best health service in the world, but we now have the most inequitable system in the world. I do not know of many countries where having money makes as much difference as it does in this country to the treatment received. We know that a person with money can get an operation immediately, and that a person who does not may have to wait several years.
  Maria Eagle: Eighteen years.
  Mr. Portillo rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but may I say to the hon. Lady that the silence of parliamentary private secretaries is a wondrous thing?
  Mr. Portillo: Given that this country has what appears, at least on paper, to be the most socialist of all health services that I can think of—as Geoffrey Rivett would say, at least outside the old eastern bloc—it is a national disgrace that this is the country where having money makes the biggest difference to whether a person receives timely health treatment.
  Laura Moffatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I am about to end my speech.
  There is an extraordinary paradox: the Prime Minister says that he wants to modernise Britain, but on the health service he is completely paralysed and unable to look outside the blinkers of the way in which we have done things for 50 years. The right hon. Gentleman regards himself as outward looking and internationalist and wants to be at the heart of Europe, but apparently cannot see through the fog of the channel to look at how things are done differently in different places. It is extraordinary to see such a Prime Minister so dug in and so dogmatically wedded to everything that we have done in the past and to the way in which we have done it. There is no other part of the heritage of the Labour Government of the 1940s to which the Prime Minister is wedded in such a way. Exclusively, apparently, the health service has to remain frozen and preserved in aspic.
  The Prime Minister's comments have been disappointing and unworthy. The slogan that has been developed—"the only alternative to modernising is privatising"—is downright dishonest, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were deeply depressed that the new Secretary of State was content to sloganise and wanted to make the NHS an election issue, apparently refusing to address the serious point. My conclusion is that Nye Bevan may indeed have done a great service to this country by freeing its people from fear of medical bills, but that, by raising to the status of dogma the financing of the national health service by the taxpayer, he has frozen in fear, in perpetuity, the politicians who ought to be addressing this serious issue.
  6.27 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I have a couple of minutes to make my points, in particular about staff. I have been astonished by some of the comments of Conservative Members. There were amazing understatements, such as
  736
  that from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said, "I believe that we did not leave the reforms of the health service quite at the point at which we would have liked." The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said that the health service is preserved in aspic, as though the only issue relating to modernisation is the way that it is funded. Was he entirely satisfied with the state of the NHS when he lost his job in 1997? I suspect not, if what he said today is true.
  It is dishonest of the Opposition not to say that the so-called reforms that they put in place have caused these difficulties because they have. There is no question about that. We have gone down a path that has caused the greatest difficulty for our staff in the NHS and the Labour Government are making sure that we get back on the straight and narrow, get people back into the health service and properly respond to their needs, particularly in cash. However, that is not the only issue. It is right and proper to reward nurses, but no one could do the job just for the money.
  Not one Conservative Member talked about the safety issues facing the NHS. If people are our most precious commodity, as they are in the NHS, we must respect them and understand that they want to work in an NHS that is safe and does the job that they as professionals expect it to do. It is important that we respond properly to their needs. For example, in the south-east, the availability of affordable housing is an issue and we have to make sure that people can work in places where it is extremely difficult to recruit. The NHS becomes unsafe because we cannot get people to work in it.
  We talk about beds, beds, beds and say that there are not enough in the NHS, but that is not the issue. One can go to Ikea and get as many beds as one wants. This is about the people who are working to ensure that the patients in the beds are safe, and are being cared for according to the standards that we all expect.
  The modernising agenda is there. The Labour party is responding to the needs. We, not the Conservative party, are listening to people, and that is why we will get it right.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I have listened carefully to all that has been said, some of which has been very interesting. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that the growth of the private sector would complement the national health service. I welcome that uncharacteristic display of openness from a Liberal Democrat.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is not present, is at least consistent, and I would not expect him to move an inch. I disagree with him entirely, but I respect his consistency: he is one of the few Labour Members who have stuck to a position that they have maintained for many years. He did, however, manage to ignore the experience of the rest of Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) helpfully drew attention to the sterility of much of the political debate about the NHS. He referred to longer-term trends extending over periods exceeding any Government's time in office. The conclusions that we must draw from those longer-term trends underline that,

  737
  notwithstanding the rhetoric, all Governments over the past 20 years or so have spent more on the NHS, and the problems have not gone away. That emphasises the need for serious consideration of strategic approaches to those problems.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) seemed to suggest that doctors were to blame, because they are building and defending their empires. He apparently supports the idea that the Government should tell doctors how to spend their resources. He calls it modernisation; I suspect that most people in the health service would call it meddling. Most telling of all, after his condemnation of the internal market, he gave figures relating to the differing costs of certain procedures in different hospitals. He was right to draw attention to the disparities, but had it not been for the internal market he would not have had the figures.
  Mr. Barron: According to the hon. Gentleman, I said that doctors were to blame. In fact, he has answered his own point. The figures that I gave relate to the practices of clinicians in the NHS. I asked why some clinical interventions cost three times as much as others. Surely he accepts that ensuring that our money is used in a resourceful way should be a priority.
  Mr. Hammond: It is an important issue, and the hon. Gentleman is entirely right; but without the internal market he would not have the figures that he has been quoting at us, and we could not pursue his argument and, hopefully, make the necessary savings.
  In our last health debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) warned the Secretary of State that winter crises would inevitably recur unless the fundamental issues were addressed. I remember that very well. My right hon. and learned Friend is eminently qualified to draw attention to the myth continually promoted by the Government that a re-elected Conservative Administration would have stuck to the draft spending plans. Everyone knows that we had annual spending rounds, and spending on the NHS would—as it always had—have increased year on year. By pretending that they would follow the Conservative spending plans, the Government starved the NHS for the first two years; now they wonder why the patient is not responding to force feeding.
  My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of the discredited £21 billion slogan. As he said, it has now been replaced by a new slogan referring to a "five years ahead" target to match a European spending average that has not been defined for us. It is not even clear to me that that constitutes a pledge. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the Prime Minister gave a clear commitment on Sunday.
  The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who often speaks on these matters, said that the NHS wasn't broke, but did need fixing. He seemed to miss an important point about additional resources. He said that expanding private spending would simply denude the NHS of resources. Let me tell him that, whether financial resources come from the private sector or the public sector, they will contribute exactly the same to the pot, and the problem will be exactly the same: how to turn financial resources into real
  738
  resources. The Secretary of State may say that that problem can be solved by injecting more public money, but it can equally be solved by finding other financial resources.
  Dr. Stoate: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way to me in his winding-up speech. In fact, I was referring to NHS staff. There are not enough doctors, not enough nurses and not enough members of professions allied to medicine. Until we have trained more people— as the Government are doing—reapportioning the same number of staff between the private and public sectors will not improve the situation.
  Mr. Hammond: What the hon. Gentleman said was that more private spending would denude the NHS of resources. More needs to be spent on health care, but the problem of translating financial resources into real resources—doctors and nurses—will be the same whether the money comes through additional private spending, a mixed model or more state expenditure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) drew our attention to the important fact that it is largely through historical accident that our national health service is funded as it is. He posed a good question: why is it, outside the eastern bloc, a unique model for the delivery of health care? If it had so much to recommend it, why did not other countries in western Europe copy it when rebuilding their economies in the 1950s and 1960s? He also drew attention to the insularity of the Labour party. The party that does not want to be isolated in Europe has refused to learn anything from the lessons of all our European neighbours over 30 or 40 years.
  I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is to wind up the debate, but I find it odd that, with four junior health Ministers in the House, it was not possible to find one who was willing and able to do so.
  We have heard from Labour Members—not least the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt)—a catalogue of complacency, in the face of the worst short-term crisis that the NHS has faced in living memory and against a backdrop of growing discontent with the state of our health system overall. The Government stand exposed as complacent, ill-prepared, shifty and manipulative when under pressure, and simply not credible when attempting to formulate a policy response to the longer-term strategic questions that face health services, while refusing to abandon any of their dogmatic baggage.
  I thought it a telling insight into new Labour's priorities that, at the beginning of last week, with patients dying for want of intensive-care beds, staff working at breaking point and hospitals bursting at the seams, there was, according to the Secretary of State, "not a crisis". But by the end of the week, one doctor speaking his mind and telling the truth about Labour's national health service had become a crisis of such proportions that it required the direct involvement of the Prime Minister.
  Labour has no credible policy solution to the problems of the NHS: the Prime Minister's intervention confirmed that. We have no clue about how the Government would deal with the real problems in the long term. Their prescription is "more of the same"—although it is obvious to every qualified observer that, after nearly three years, the new Labour medicine simply is not working.

  739
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield commented, in the Secretary of State's whole rambling speech, there was not a single new idea for the resourcing of our national health service.
  The Secretary of State said that he had an open mind, but it was abundantly clear during his speech that he has not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is unbelievably depressing. The Secretary of State's dogmatic hostility to the private sector was tangible throughout his speech.
  Many hon. Members paid tribute to the valiant efforts of the dedicated staff—just about the only thing holding the health service together. I associate myself with those remarks, but the fact is that, despite those efforts, the NHS is not providing a basic acceptable level of service to all. The Prime Minister has acknowledged as much, snatching the rug as he did so from under the Secretary of State, who just a few days earlier had denied that that was the case.
  As it is currently managed and run, the NHS clearly cannot cope when faced with a sudden surge in demand. People living in an advanced, affluent democracy—the world's fifth largest economy—at the outset of the 21st century should not have to ask themselves, "If I fall sick, will there be a hospital bed available for me?" or, "If I need an intensive care bed, how many hundreds of miles will I have to be transported to get it?"
  Our neighbours in France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands take such a service for granted. It is increasingly clear that the British public are no longer willing to be denied the levels of health care that their neighbours enjoy simply because of the Government's dogmatic political ideology.
  The current crisis in the NHS is a catalyst that demands a triple response. First, we need an immediate short-term response from the Government. On that count, they have clearly failed. They failed to give a clear undertaking to hospitals that they could devote resources to medical priorities without risking penalisation under the Government's waiting list scheme. They have failed to take the lead in encouraging NHS hospitals to use the private sector where that is sensible. Instead, they have ducked and weaved, relying on spin, rather than looking for real solutions.
  The Government tried to exaggerate the status of the flu epidemic outbreak. They then misled us over the number of intensive care beds that had been created and suppressed the report of the inquiry into NHS beds, which will show that, despite their rhetoric, bed numbers have fallen under Labour.
  Secondly, in the medium term, we need an end to the system of initiatives that is doing so much to damage the NHS, particularly the Government's waiting list pledge, which has grotesquely distorted clinical priorities throughout the service in favour of Labour's political priorities. Since they came to office, they have doubled the number of in-patients waiting more than 13 weeks and doubled the number of people waiting for an out-patient consultation. We need an end to that distorting system immediately.
  Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the crisis shows the need for a longer-term, more measured response to the underlying problems of the NHS: not a panic reaction such as the one that has occurred in the past couple of
  740
  days, with wild half promises and vague commitments, but a measured, serious review of the options for future delivery of health care.
  We have invited the Government to join in such a review, starting without any ideological baggage and looking at all the options with the open mind that the Secretary of State claimed he had. It has been made abundantly clear from the things that he has said that he rejects that opportunity to take the NHS off the political battlefield and to deal with it rationally.
  So far, the Government's only response to serious debate on the future of the health service is to level the rather pathetic charge that anyone who dares to question the sustainability of the present model—which is now almost all serious commentators—wants to privatise the NHS. That seems to be the only argument that the Government can deploy in defence of the status quo. They do not deploy reasoned arguments, call for open discussion of the options, or review experience elsewhere. It is simply a knee-jerk reaction. That strikes me as the position of a Government who are not confident of their case, but have a bunker-style mentality, are increasingly isolated at home on the issue and are in a minority of one, even among their socialist colleagues in Europe.
  The Conservative position could not be clearer. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring again today. We are committed absolutely to the NHS, free at the point of delivery. We are committed to increases year on year in real terms in NHS funding under the next Conservative Government. However, we recognise that, even with that commitment to tax-funded NHS spending, it will not be enough in the face of the explosion in medical technology and the imminent genetics revolution. All serious commentators now agree that what is needed is strategic and innovative thinking about the NHS. We have seen that there is no appetite on the Government Benches for such a debate.
  The irresistible conclusion for anyone with an open mind on the subject is that a great part of the additional spending that we will have to deploy to deliver the health services that the people of this country demand and deserve in the 21st century will have to come from sources other than general taxation. That is not to supplant the NHS, but to supplement it. It is to ensure sustainable growth in the overall resources that are available for health care.
  As a result of this debate, the Government need to recognise, if nothing else, that it is not the ideological purity of the NHS that matters to the people of Britain, but the practical reality of effective health care that is free at the point of delivery and there for them when they need it—as, tragically, it was not for Mavis Skeet and many others.
  6.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): We have had an interesting debate, although it has been somewhat curtailed because of the time available, on the important subject of the NHS. To answer the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) immediately, I am here as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales because we are a United Kingdom Parliament. There are Labour Members who are interested in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland health

  741
  matters and issues in a UK context. I recognise that the Conservative party does not have seats in any of those places, but it is important for us to look at the health service in the context of the UK. As hon. Members can see, the amendment has been tabled in the names of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales, whereas the Conservative party motion refers to the UK as a whole.
  Some central themes have been raised: change, funding, modernisation and reform. However, there has been a marked divergence between the approach of the Conservative Opposition and that of Labour Members. Interestingly, the three Members who spoke from the Conservative Back Benches were the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). They were all Cabinet Ministers in the Conservative Government, who were in office for 18 years and caused many of the problems that we face today.
  The Conservative Opposition have suggested that there is under-funding in the NHS. They have made some imaginative suggestions about increased involvement of the private health sector in funding the NHS. Alternative ways have been suggested to allow the private sector to take over some of the responsibilities that are funded by taxation. All those ideas are contrary to the spirit of what the Government believe in, to which Labour Members have referred. It is interesting that, while serving their party in government for 18 years, those three Conservative Back Benchers supported the NHS by reducing its funding. They now come forward—
  Sir Raymond Whitney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hanson: In a moment.
  Those Conservative Members reduced NHS funding in overall terms—
  Sir Raymond Whitney rose—
  Mr. Hanson: I will give way in a moment.
  Those Members reduced funding in overall terms— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have such behaviour. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) should not shout across the Chamber.
  Mr. Hanson: In that time, those Conservative Members reduced the NHS's real funding and caused difficulties, but they now suggest using the private health sector as an option for funding.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman retract the misinformation that he has just given the House? The figures show that, in the 18 years of Conservative Government, real-terms spending on the health service increased by 75 per cent.
  Mr. Hanson: This Government will be providing additional resources to the national health service, over
  742
  and above what the Conservative Government provided. As a constituency Member of Parliament, my experience has been—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point in hon. Members shouting withdraw. The Minister is in order. Had he been out of order, I would have been the first to say so.
  Mr. Hanson: My experience as a constituency Member of Parliament is that, when the previous Government were in office, the number of beds in my constituency and overall NHS real-terms funding were reduced.
  In today's debate, my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) have offered real alternatives in ensuring modernisation, commitment and long-term funding of the NHS and in tackling the consequences of the Tory record on the national health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford expressed strong views on illness prevention, a primary issue that will have to be addressed if we are to ensure that the NHS is strongly supported.
  In this debate, there was, as ever, disagreement among Liberal Democrat Members. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) certainly welcomed the Government's plans to achieve additional expenditure on health services, so that it matches the similar expenditure of our European partners. However, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who has left the Chamber, did not particularly support his comments, or those of Conservative Members, on private-sector involvement.
  We have had an interesting debate, in which hon. Members have raised various issues, but the themes developed by Conservative Members—on the private health sector and on underfunding—have not chimed with it.
  I am proud to be a member of a Labour Government— such as the one who founded the national health service. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea mentioned Bevan's founding of the health service, but not the fact that Conservative Members voted 51 times against its founding. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are committed to modernising the health service and to looking forward.
  There is great pressure on the national health service, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and others recognise that pressure. However, we should remember that, over Christmas, hundreds of people across Wales, Scotland and England received emergency care and were admitted to hospital, and that hundreds of thousands of people received other support and help from the NHS.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman relies on his own constituency experience to deny the 75 per cent. real funding increase provided by the Conservative Government. My constituency experience includes a 75-year-old lady who, on Christmas eve, was turned away from the Redhill hospital and sent to find an intensive care bed in Great Yarmouth. What does the Minister tell her and her family about the treatment that she received?
  Mr. Hanson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there have been problems—no one denies that.

  743
  At the start of 2000, there were 190 cases of flu per 100,000 population in Wales, whereas four weeks previously only three people per 100,000 had flu. It was a major increase in a short time. We have to recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, people are now suffering from flu for longer—on average, 10 to 12 days rather than four to five days—and that more older people are suffering from it.
  Certainly in Wales, and probably also in England, the pressures are the greatest in 25 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Government have provided extra resources in England and Wales—[Interruption.] Pressures on health services in my part of Wales are certainly the greatest that they have been for 25 years, due largely to the number of people who have had flu—[Interruption.] We need to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the situation to continue. The Minister is entitled to a hearing.
  Mr. Hanson: Pressures on the health service have increased substantially because of the flu, but those pressures are being dealt with. We have provided additional resources to deal with winter pressures and undertaken severe long-term planning to deal with them.
  Today's debate gives us an opportunity to focus on the future, not simply on the current winter crisis. Since the general election, the Government have increased real-terms spending on the health service.
  Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanson: I shall give way in a moment.
  Since the general election, an additional £1.9 billion has been pledged in England and, in the next three years, another £18 billion of extra expenditure will be provided. In those two years, in my part of Wales £291 million over and above the resources planned by the Conservative Government has been provided, and £1.3 billion of expenditure is pledged for the next three years. It is about the need to ensure long-term planning, modernisation, change and funding—which is the exact point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.
  Mr. Wilshire: If there is so much extra money sloshing around, why has my health authority been ordered to cut £20 million of its spending in the next three years?
  Mr. Hanson: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health said, there have been huge deficits in some health authorities.
  We should consider the Tory record. Under the previous Government—and the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was Secretary of State for Wales—Wales lost 1,200 hospital beds, inpatient waiting lists increased by 5,800, and 300 nurses, midwives and home visitors were lost.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanson: No; time is pressing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The hon. Gentleman overran his time.
  744
  We should focus on the Labour initiatives that the Government have taken in Wales and elsewhere. To date, NHS Direct has received almost 1 million calls. In Wales, NHS Direct has received—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not give way.
  Mr. Hanson: The national health service, under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has provided an additional £80 million for cancer services and an additional £3.5 million in Wales. The funding is part of meeting the target—in which the Prime Minister is directly interested—of saving 100,000 lives.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanson: No.
  Additional resources have been provided to assist nurse recruitment in Wales. Extra nurse posts are available in Wales and elsewhere. The Government have spent additional sums on walk-in centres, with 20 pilot centres established in the current year in England. Since the general election, the capital programme has increased dramatically.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister will not give way. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should not remain on her feet, but should take the hint that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Hanson: We have ensured the largest capital programme in the history of the national health service, with £8 billion of additional expenditure in the United Kingdom.
  We are also making a commitment to modernise and invest for the future. The Labour commitment is for improved funding. As the Prime Minister said, we shall invest an average funding increase to ensure that, as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United Kingdom provides the same funding levels as those provided by our European partners. We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service to ensure that we bring ourselves up to the European average.
  The Government are about modernisation and aiming for higher standards. We are also about ensuring that we provide decent levels of care for our people. Conservative Members offer privatisation, but private health insurance is not a solution to the national health service's funding problems. They argue that people should insure themselves privately, but the people who might need private health insurance under the Conservatives are the ones whom the private health insurers will not touch.

  745
  We are committed to funding and modernising the national health service and to ensuring real improvements over the next five years under this Government and beyond.
  If people want privatisation, they should follow the route of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, who said that it was just a historical fact that the national health service was founded under Labour. He said that, under the Conservatives, private health insurance would become the norm. We reject that approach. We stand for extra funding for the national health service.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 328.

  Division No. 30]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Allan, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Flight, Howard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ballard, Jackie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bercow, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Brady, Graham

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brake, Tom

  Gray, James

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Green, Damian

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John

  Breed, Colin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hancock, Mike

  Burnett, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Burstow, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Heald, Oliver

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Keetch, Paul

  Cran, James

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

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Duncan, Alan

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  746

  Lansley, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

  Lidington, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spring, Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Swayne, Desmond

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, William

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Townend, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyler, Paul

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Walter, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Webb, Steve

  Paterson, Owen

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Prior, David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilkinson, John

  Rendel, David

  Willetts, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Robertson, Laurence

  Wilshire, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ruffley, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. John Randall and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blizzard, Bob

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ainger, Nick

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Borrow, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ashton, Joe

  Browne, Desmond

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burden, Richard

  Austin, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Barnes, Harry

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Barron, Kevin

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Caton, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  747

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hill, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hurst, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Drew, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Steve

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonnell, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  748

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Maxton, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Snape, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

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

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mudie, George

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Todd, Mark

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Touhig, Don

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pound, Stephen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Prescott Rt Hon John

  White, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wills, Michael

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooney, Terry

  Wood, Mike

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rowlands, Ted

  Woolas, Phil

  Roy, Frank

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  Wray, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wyatt Derek

  Salter, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  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.

  749
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the dedication and commitment of National Health Service staff for their tireless efforts at all times and in particular during the millennium holiday period and the current severe outbreak of flu; welcomes the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the National Health Service Pay Review bodies in full and without staging for the second year, in start contrast to the practice of the previous administration; notes that, between 20th December and last weekend, there were 350,000 999 calls, over 800,000 attendances at Accident and Emergency departments and there have been over 250,000 emergency admissions; recognises the vital role in meeting these pressures played by the unprecedented level of planning for the winter, covering health and social services and the extension of NHS Direct to two-thirds of England; welcomes the measures already taken by this Government to increase the capacity of the National Health Service, including increased provision of critical care beds, the modernisation of Accident and Emergency departments, the biggest ever National Health Service hospital building programme, the employment of additional doctors and the recruitment of more nurses, the cuts in in-patient waiting lists, the extra investment to modernise cancer, coronary and mental health services and the commitment to increased investment in and modernisation of the National Health Service; and rejects the Opposition's proposals to privatise the National Health Service.

  Government Running Costs
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the increase in running costs of central Government and rising waste in public expenditure; regrets that this means resources are not reaching front-line public services; regrets that the Government seeks to deflect criticism of their failure to deliver improvements in public services onto public servants; notes the doubling in the number of paid political advisers; and deplores the Government's reliance on spin-doctoring and bureaucracy in place of support for public services.
  This debate, and the one that preceded it, are two sides of the same coin. Nearly 1,000 days into this Labour Government, the public's experience of the health service, schools, transport and crime tells them that Labour is failing to live up to its election promises. They know that Labour is putting up taxes by stealth —£40 billion of extra taxes —and they are told that billions are going into health and education. Yet they know also that money is not reaching front-line services.
  In my constituency, Addenbrookes hospital—a world-class hospital—is budgeting this year for a £2.5 million deficit, its first-ever such deficit. In recent weeks, it has on four occasions had to transfer intensive care patients elsewhere—something it has had to do only once before.
  Vital as it is to increase the resources for health and other key public services, the responsibility that goes with it, placed upon Government, is to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent effectively. The public want to know where the money is going.
  One key part of the answer is that billions are going to meet the costs of Labour's failure to reform and reduce welfare spending. The Prime Minister said:
  "I vow that we will have reduced the proportion—
  of national income—
  "we spend on welfare bills of social failure."
  Yet the increase in social security spending will be more than £30 billion by the end of the Parliament. That, however, is not the whole story.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman referred to the "reform" of welfare spending. Is he acknowledging, therefore, that welfare spending needed reforming?
  Mr. Lansley: Welfare spending needs to get away from the Government's approach of spending more while failing to reduce welfare budgets, and to get away from the means-testing proposals. We need a genuine reform of welfare spending that will enable more resources to be delivered to front-line public services. That is what the public are looking for.
  However, as I said, that is not the whole story. Where else is the money going? It is going into the cost of running central Government itself. Whitehall saw Labour coming, and big government is back. The figures are startling. The Conservatives cut the number of civil servants by nearly a third. Since the election, that reduction has virtually stopped.

  751
  The last Conservative Government introduced management information systems, tough running cost limits and measures to relate activity and outputs to resources and their deployment. By comparison, under Labour, we have the much vaunted public service agreements, which are geared less to the value for money of spending and more to Treasury micro-management of public services according to Labour's political objectives—even extending to setting the priorities of local government.
  The last Conservative Government had a grip on the cost of administering central Government itself. That is something that the public have a right to expect. At the last election, I met plenty of voters who wanted to see more resources for health, education and the police. However, I met none who wanted to see the Government spend more on administration.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If the Conservative Government had a grip on government costs, could the hon. Gentleman explain why, in the last two years of that Government, the national debt doubled?
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman knows that that Conservative Administration were rapidly reducing Government debt—[Interruption.] In the last two years—that is what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is asking. In the last five years of that Conservative Administration, we saw a 10 per cent. reduction in real terms in Government running costs. In the five years before the 1997–98 financial year, that was the record of the Conservative Administration.
  What has happened under Labour, by contrast with that 10 per cent. real terms reduction? The last published spending plans before May 1997 said that, compared with 1997–98, the running costs of Departments would be reduced by £223 million in the subsequent year and, in 1999–2000, would be £114 million lower than the base year. The Government's latest figures show that the cost of administration of Departments last year was £867 million higher than the preceding year and this year will be £1,104 million higher than the base year. Compared with previous plans, therefore, Labour has not delivered the planned savings, and it has also lost its grip and let spending on running the Government rise sharply.
  The result is that in the space of two years £2,300 million more has been spent on administration than was set out in the plans this Government inherited. That is an enormous sum that could buy much front-line activity. Given the debate that we have just had, it is instructive to note that the sum is more than half the annual cost of general practitioners in the NHS; it is more than is spent in a year on children's personal social services; and it is one third more than this year's total capital spending in the NHS. I recall that Labour's so-called early pledge to cut waiting lists by 100,000 was to be achieved by cutting administration costs by £100 million, but if Labour has spent £2,300 million more on administration, that is a compelling reason why it is failing to deliver.
  Department by Department the story is the same. For the Department of Health, we achieved a £93 million reduction in total running costs for the four years before the election, but that has been followed in the subsequent two years by a £38 million increase. At the Department
  752
  for Education and Employment, we achieved a £95 million reduction in the three years before the election, which has been followed by a £36 million increase in the past two years. For the Department of Trade and Industry, spending was down by £82 million in the two years before the election but has gone up by £55 million in the two years since.
  The cost and waste does not stop at departmental running costs. Scattered through the Government's spending plans are their slush funds, the so-called unallocated provision, which adds up to £173 million. It adds insult to injury for the taxpayer to have to pay more in taxes only for the money to be wasted or squandered on Labour's machinery of spin and disinformation. The public want more doctors and fewer spin doctors, and that is what the Conservative party will offer.
  To Labour, facts do not speak for themselves. Indeed, it believes that facts should not speak at all. Interpretation is all, and facts are secondary. Lack of accountability is the easy Labour way out of answering for the Government's lack of policy achievement. They spin their way out of problems, thanks to the growing phalanx of taxpayer-funded political advisers.
  In the summer last year, we had the absurdity of Labour's annual report, in which dozens of manifesto pledges were counted as realised because the Government had published some document or announced some future target. For Labour, activity is a substitute for achievement. Its response to criticism is to blame public servants, as we saw last summer. Labour wants to make the civil service, not Ministers, accountable for the results of its policies.
  I applaud the Neill committee's vigilance in following up the Government's evident desire to make political compliance the key to career advancement inside the civil service. The Neill committee last week recommended that the performance measurement of permanent heads of Departments
  "should be structured to allow for some element of independent validation so as not to undermine political impartiality".
  That is right, but as a former civil servant myself, I find it profoundly depressing that the qualities and values of civil servants, who are often highly able and dedicated to public service, are at risk of being undermined by the pressure for political correctness and compliance demanded by Labour Ministers and their paid political advisers.
  The growth of direct political interference in the provision of policy advice to Ministers is among the greatest dangers. On that, we can see clearly that big Government means worse Government.
  Mr. Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman apologising for the actions of the Tory Government in the early 1980s, post-Rayner, when political allegiance to monetarism was the key to promotion, not ability? Many people left rather than subscribe to that view.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman was a civil servant himself at that time, as was I. His experience may have been different, but my experience at the Department of Trade and Industry was that there was no such basis for advancement in the civil service. I worked for Lord Tebbit of Chingford, who may have politicised me, but he did not politicise the civil servants with whom he worked.

  753
  Indeed, many people from that Department will vouch for the fact that he took impartial policy advice and never confused his responsibility as a party politician with his responsibility as a Minister.
  The Labour party has virtually doubled the number of special advisers. The pay bill has more than doubled. At 10 Downing street, there are now 25 politically appointed special advisers, but the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), had eight.
  The Neill committee has made welcome proposals about the future scrutiny and numbers of advisers. Of immediate concern to us, however, is the malign influence that those advisers are having on Government and the body politic. They are not discreet advisers. They see themselves as extensions of their Ministers. They brief against each other as much as against us. They have briefed against civil servants, who cannot answer in kind. They speak at party meetings. They take key advisory posts, such as chief press spokesman or chief economic adviser, formerly held by permanent civil servants. They have made more than 170 overseas visits. They see themselves as plenipotentiaries for their Ministers and insert themselves into the chain of ministerial decision making, superior to, rather than complementary to, the impartial sources of advice on which Ministers should rely.
  Dr. Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman just said that special advisers have a malign influence on the system. The Neill committee has recently considered the point and it did not come to that conclusion. In fact, the Neill committee heard from the Cabinet Secretary and others that special advisers had a valuable role to play.
  Mr. Lansley: I remember the point that the Neill committee made, but that did not stop the committee reviewing the compliance with the existing model contract and codes of conduct for special advisers and concluding that a new statutory code of conduct is required. The committee also recommended a limit on the number of special advisers. It is my view that the extent to which Labour has introduced political advisers and the extent to which they have overstepped their proper role is a malign influence.
  Special advisers have a valuable role to play, but they should do so within the code of conduct. Their role should be modest and dedicated to party political advice, not to seeking to influence the role of the civil service. My view differs from that of the Neill committee. I accept that the committee does not endorse my view, but the fact that it examined the way that the Government have acted in the past two years, and felt it necessary to extend its remit, is an indication of widespread concerns that are not confined to the Conservative party.
  Dr. Wright: Could the difference be that the Neill committee took evidence for its views?
  Mr. Lansley: Much of the evidence was persuasive. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, gave good evidence on those points. It is not for
  754
  me to anticipate the Neill committee's future judgments, but if there is no change in the way in which special advisers operate within the present Administration, the committee would be right to revisit the issue and take further serious steps to limit their number and their role in Government.
  The impact of special advisers on the civil service is evident in the way in which information officers have responded. Some 15 out of 17 of the most senior information officers in the Government have been removed, in one way or another. In place of information, we get disinformation. I talked today to one of those former chief information officers. He said, with understandable feeling, that to wave away the malign influence of unelected unaccountable political advisers was wrong. As he said, special advisers in those numbers, and with that attitude, will ultimately lead to a corruption of the system.
  The Prime Minister at least has made no bones about the party political nature of his information system. He described the job of his chief press spokesman as being to attack the Conservative party. No. 10 has now set up the knowledge network—1984-speak for a group that I am told is referred to as the Ministry of Truth in Whitehall—which is to be staffed by Millbank tower émigrés and headed by a Mr. Joe McCrea.
  The rules governing special advisers state that advisers must "express comment with moderation". I am sure that that was always Mr. McCrea's approach, and I can tell people unfamiliar with that soul of moderation that he was spin doctor in chief to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) throughout the period when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health. Therefore, even as a new set of spin doctors try to spin their way out of the mess that he left behind, the architect of disinformation on health is to be embraced once again at the centre of Government.
  The Government appear to have learned nothing. When will they understand that false promises, double and triple counting and layers of gloss placed on unpalatable truths only make matters worse in the long run? I warn the Government that, in opposition, they may have been able to avoid the truth but, in government, truth will out. I fear that they will not heed that warning but will persist in believing that the relationship of perception to reality is a one-way street. They believe that, if they can control perceptions, reality does not matter.
  The Government are wrong. Reality influences perception, and it is no part of the civil service task to substitute Labour perceptions for reality. It is symptomatic of the threat that Labour represents to civil service impartiality that a senior official is reported to have said of the knowledge network being established in No. 10:
  "It is highly questionable whether some aspects of the system are justified in policy terms. Much of the information is only useful for political campaigning and there is huge concern that civil servants will be drawn into using it to provide party political information."
  We see the result. We have reached the sorry pass that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can announce an aid package of £530 million, only for us to find—with the help of a Select Committee and others—that it turns out to be worth only £1 million extra to farmers.
  Labour remains what it has always been—the party of higher taxes and bigger government. The reality of that is more bureaucracy, and more politicians, reviews,

  755
  quangos, tiers of government, incompetence and waste. There is now a mountain of extra government. An extra £2.3 billion has been added to the cost of administering central Government. It costs £35 million to run the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly costs an extra£15 million. There are 359 extra paid politicians.
  Ms Hazel Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what price the Conservative party places on democracy? Is he in favour of consulting people, drawing in other views and creating policies based on real-life experience? Does he agree that a mature Government bases policies on real evidence, or does he prefer the politics displayed by previous Administrations? Those arrogant and complacent Governments merely dictated from the centre and were completely out of touch with people.
  Mr. Lansley: We believe in the reality of democracy, which is about holding Executives to account as well as about representing people. Labour wants to wield power and aggrandise government, but we want to give power to people by giving local government the power to determine matters according to local circumstances and needs. Real democracy is not about giving power to tiers of regional government, or about making Britain the most governed country in Europe through the addition of more tiers of government. It is about making government and democracy effective.
  I said earlier that the Government believe activity can substitute for achievement, and that increasing the size of government automatically makes government more effective. I have news for the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears): more government generally means less effective government.
  I noted that there are now 359 extra paid politicians. I invite the hon. Member for Salford to ask people whether they think that this country would benefit from more paid politicians, or fewer. The Government have also set up 500 reviews. The Government appeared to take office on a democratic mandate, but their actions since have amounted only to government by review.
  The Government have also established 318 task forces. The Nolan rules were intended to ensure an open system of appointment of those outside government who give Ministers advice. Yet most of the 318 task forces are treated as temporary, whether they are or not. They are therefore considered to be outside the Nolan rules and an extension of ministerial patronage.
  The previous Government introduced the system known as the Nolan rules. Those rules were intended to ensure that there existed open and impartial sources of advice inside government, and that those sources included civil servants and people brought in to staff advisory bodies and executive bodies of all kinds. However, the Government have already set out to evade the rules and to extend Ministers' patronage. They call it bringing people into the tent—I suspect that they would not want to say that they were bringing people into the dome.
  There is also a layer of regional government, in the form of development agencies, that costs £69 million a year to run. I searched, without success, in departmental annual reports for evidence of a reduction in the running costs of central Government to compensate for the establishment of the regional development agencies.
  756
  An extra £70 million is to be spent on Government advertising this year. There has been a series of costly IT and administrative blunders. The Public Accounts Committee reported waste in parts of the benefits system and in the public-partnership for the London Underground. The cost of the national handover plan for the euro is, as yet, undisclosed.
  If the British people knew the half of the problem, they would rebel against the forces of big government. It is the Opposition's job to see that they do know the size of the problem and to offer the commonsense alternative—smaller government, with more power for people and their communities.
  The alternative also includes free schools, the patients guarantee and the tax guarantee. We would have fewer politicians, and more doctors but fewer spin doctors. We would demonstrate a renewed commitment to reducing the administrative cost of central Government. More money would be available for vital public services as a result. We would respect the impartiality and values of the civil service.
  Our alternative system would be accountable to a strengthened Parliament that was more able to hold the Executive to account. Genuinely devolved responsibility to communities and local government would mean that accountable decisions would be made locally.
  The contrast is clear. Those who talk of convergence in politics are not looking at this issue. The direction of Labour is to bigger government, diminished accountability and a weaker citizenry. The Conservative way is to go for smaller government that works better, which is more accountable and which strengthens the powers and responsibilities of citizens.
  The arrogance of this Government is never more brazen than when they are exploiting the power of government for their own political ends. They spend taxpayers' money on the machinery of government and on their pet schemes as if there were an inexhaustible supply of other people's hard-earned income. At the same time, they manipulate the press and the media to prevent the public from knowing what is really going on, and to undermine the effectiveness of the House or the media in holding the Government to account.
  This debate charges the Government with favouring big government, high running costs, waste and excess. The evidence condemns them, and I urge the House to support the motion.
  7.39 pm
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that, compared to the previous administration, the costs of central Government have not risen in real terms, and have indeed fallen; supports the progress made by this Government in cleaning up politics and rebuilding the bond of trust with the British people, broken through the failures of the previous administration; welcomes the Government's actions to improve democratic accountability; endorses the inclusive approach to policymaking of the Modernising Government agenda, which involves more people from all walks of life; welcomes the improvement in standards in public life; and agrees, with the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that 'special advisers have a valuable role to play.'."
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has painted an extraordinary picture. Few hon. Members would recognise it as an accurate or fair

  757
  account of the way in which the Government have started to reduce costs and improve accountability in political life. It is a sham and a farce to peddle the notion that this Government are less accountable and less open than the previous Administration.
  The hon. Gentleman referred in a cavalier fashion to perceptions; I shall deal in reality now, and answer some of the arguments that he has attempted to make.
  The hon. Gentleman argued that costs have risen. I have just listened to figures produced by the Opposition that could exist only in a fantasy land—just like last Sunday's claim by the Leader of the Opposition that the total cost of running Whitehall has risen by £1,000 million in the past two years and that he would cut that to fund his health spending plans. That is not the real world. Those figures are ludicrous: they take no account of inflation—of the running costs of wages and of materials that people use in their work every day.
  The real figures show that administration costs have fallen in real terms compared with those of the previous Government. We are spending less than the last Government on Whitehall bureaucracy. Spending was higher when the Conservatives were in power, yet they now say that they would make cuts in public services. We all know where those cuts would fall. The Conservatives would scrap the working families tax credit, the new deal and the national minimum wage; they would undermine child benefit and cut help for pensioners. Those are the first real cuts that they would make.
  The hon. Gentleman argued that the Conservative party would make a difference in the health service. Would they make as big a difference as we did in the first year, with £21 billion announced for NHS spending? [Interruption.] In the first year, we announced a spending figure of £21 billion. I shall go on to give the figures for the second and third years, if Conservative Members will give me a break.
  Spending on NHS bureaucracy has been reduced, and spending on front-line patient care has increased. We have done away with the two-tier system and, under the primary care system, patients' voices will be heard. We have started the building that will continue in the second year with the money that was announced in the first year. It will go on 37 new hospitals, the £100 payments towards winter fuel bills, free eye tests and increases in child benefit. Those changes have been made: they, and not the Opposition's perceptions, are the reality.
  The hon. Gentleman's second argument is that special advisers are a drain on the public purse. I am sorry that he disagrees, as he made it very clear, with Lord Neill, who said last week in his sixth report that special advisers have a valuable role to play. Sir Richard Wilson, head of the civil service, has said that he does not think that the senior civil service—who number about 3,500 or 3,600—is in danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers; he does not regard what is happening as creeping politicisation.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: When the Prime Minister appointed 53 advisers, which was a substantial increase on the 38 posts that existed when he came to power, he said that although there would be more advisers, the total salary bill would be kept under the same
  758
  cost umbrella of £1.8 million that he had inherited from the previous Government. Why has the salary bill now reached £4 million?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The Prime Minister made no secret of the fact that he wanted special advisers in the Government to help drive the Government's policies forward. I make no apology for the fact that we are governing in a different way from the previous Administration. Given the mess that they got into, I am sure that most people welcome the change.
  In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), the overall costs have remained broadly in line with what the Prime Minister promised. We have made no secret of the numbers and cost of special advisers or of their work. We said that the number and funding of special advisers would be published—something that no previous Government had done. We have done all that.
  The fact that we have special advisers guarantees—contrary to what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire argued—the impartiality of the civil service. Who writes my party conference speeches with me? Do I ask a civil servant? No—I ask a special adviser. That is what they are there for. They protect the civil service, rather than making it political.
  Let me reinforce that point by quoting Jonathan Baume of the Association of First Division Civil Servants. He said:
  "A good special adviser is well worth having in any Department—it is also fair to say that this Government have used its special advisers in a much more upfront way. A good special adviser is an asset to a Department, both to the Minister and to the civil service."
  Mr. Damian Green: The Minister quotes Jonathan Baume. His predecessor at the Association of First Division Civil Servants now sits on the Labour Benches in the Lords, so I am not sure whether those comments are completely impartial.
  The Government have put special advisers in executive control of impartial civil servants. Career civil servants know that they must serve the interests of the Government of the day if they want to get on. That is the new corruption that the Government have introduced through the special adviser system.
  Marjorie Mowlam: That is an insult to the civil service. The quote I gave was from the head of the Association of First Division Civil Servants, whose integrity the hon. Gentleman has just questioned. Civil servants continue to be impartial advisers. If they were not—if we did not have special advisers giving us political advice—there would be the potential for politicisation. At the moment, there is not.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: What about Alastair Campbell?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Alastair Campbell is not a party spokesperson. It is right that he is not paid out of the party purse. His contract makes it clear that he is employed to speak to the media on the Government's behalf. He expresses not his own views but those of the Prime

  759
  Minister, and he avoids personal attacks. [Laughter.] Does the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) want to follow that up? Alastair Campbell's role is clear.
  Mr. Green: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Not for the moment. The fact that Alastair Campbell's is a political appointment means that civil servants are not being asked to become involved in political arguments. As with all special advisers, Alastair Campbell's appointment helps to preserve impartiality. [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing less of the raucous shouting and more inclination to deal with reality.
  The civil servants with whom we work have not complained, and their trade unions have spoken in support of our policies.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Not at the moment. Let me deal with the media monitoring unit to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred. There is, indeed, an attempt to monitor the media; all Governments have done it.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I just want to finish this point. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Media monitoring is an important aspect of Government policy and is intended to correct inaccuracies. All Governments have done it. The media move faster today, and there are many more outlets. That means more questions to which people expect a faster response.
  We have a duty to respond, to keep the public informed about what we are doing. We need the staff and the technology to make that possible in today's media world. We are not ashamed of that; I think that it leads to better information for the public whom we serve.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred to changes of press officer in the past two and a half years. During the similar period from 1979 to 1981, the number of changes was comparable. There are many reasons for such changes; some are personal, some arise from recruitment, some result from promotion and so on. We have never tried to hide any change that has taken place.
  The hon. Gentleman argued that Ministers are not accountable. Unlike previous Governments, we have set high standards for Ministers, and we expect them to be upheld. I welcomed Lord Neill's statement last week that there is less cause for concern about standards in public life than there was when the cash for questions affair led to the setting up of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I also welcomed his statement that there was no need for an independent ethics commissioner to investigate alleged abuses by Ministers. Since we came to office, we have strengthened the ministerial code to make sure that it worked effectively.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire argued that democratic accountability had diminished under the Labour Government. In fact, the opposite is true: we have
  760
  strengthened ministerial accountability. Devolution is enhancing democratic accountability, bringing government closer to the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, ultimately, London. We have brought democracy out of the dark ages by abolishing the voting rights of hereditary peers. We have increased parliamentary accountability by introducing pre-legislative scrutiny of some draft Bills, as the previous Government did not.
  Labour Ministers have made nearly twice as many oral statements in the House—80 in 1998–99, compared with 45 in 1993–94. Ministers are being held to account more often as a result of Westminster Hall debates. We are increasing the opportunities for Opposition Members to hold us to account. It is not our fault that the press do the job better than the Opposition.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way at last. We all know that statements are given first to the press. Given her experience in Northern Ireland, she may wish to read today's Evening Standard, and to discover that the statement that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to make in the House tomorrow has been given to the press today.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I was making the point that pre-legislative scrutiny allows more people to be included in consultation. That can only help us to make decent policy. We have increased the openness of government. The Freedom of Information Bill will involve everyone more closely in decisions that affect their lives. The Representation of the People Bill will increase access to democracy by improving disabled access to polling booths and setting up a rolling electoral register to maximise people's opportunities to vote. The Political Parties, Referendums and Elections Bill will ban foreign donations, and require donations of more than £5,000 to be published and the donor to be identified.
  In the past three years, we have begun to transform the ways in which the government can be held to account. We are proud of that record, and the Conservative party, with its history of secrecy and scandal, can have little of value to say about it.
  Mr. James Paice: A few minutes ago, the Minister said that her party had introduced pre-legislative scrutiny. May I suggest that tomorrow she visits the so-called "truth office" in Downing Street to discuss that matter? If that unit is concerned with the truth, it will tell the Minister that what she has told the House is incorrect. In fact, the previous Government introduced pre-legislative scrutiny on, among other things, legislation on Sunday trading and abortion.
  Marjorie Mowlam: That was done on specific issues such as private Members' Bills or matters on which that Government were split. We are introducing pre-legislative scrutiny on legislation so that parties across the House may consider it in advance.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made allegations about task forces. There are clear lines of accountability for task forces. They are accountable to Ministers, and Ministers are accountable to Parliament. We make no apology for using task forces to crack problems that we inherited from the previous Government. They include more people with a wide

  761
  variety of views. They involve experts as well as those whom the policy will affect. Task forces are a less centralised and a more accountable way of working. For the first time, the Government are publishing details of each task force, including membership, and updating those details every six months.
  One example is the social exclusion unit, which has policy action teams. For each policy, a committee is created comprising civil servants plus 100 or so people from outside, which allows the inclusion of a range of views previously not heard. The recent independent Democratic Audit report on Government task forces said:
  "We welcome the government's attempts to be more inclusive in its approach to policy review and implementation…to make the consultative and advice-seeking process more open to the public and to make it more inclusive of different kinds of expertise from civil society."
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also implied that we appoint people out of favouritism—[Interruption.] "Tony's cronies," as someone on the Opposition Benches says. I do not want to get into personal politics, but the individuals whom we have appointed across task forces provide good examples of our approach. David Mellor was appointed to chair the football task force; Chris Patten chaired the independent commission on policing in Northern Ireland; Lord Wakeham chairs the royal commission on reform of the House of Lords; Lord Mayhew chairs the advisory committee on business appointments; and Baroness Chalker is on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office panel of the 2000 advisory group. We have chosen those people for their expertise in particular areas. The cronyism argument does not hold up.
  The Government are committed to openness and accountability. We made a contract with the people at the last election to clean up politics, to make them open and accountable. That is what we have done in our first two years. I remind the House again of Lord Neill's observation that there is less concern about standards in public life than there has been since the cash for questions affair led to the setting up of the Committee on Standards in Public Life under the previous Government.
  We have come a long way, but we are far from complacent. We shall continue to work to clean up government. We shall work to rid ourselves of the legacy of distrust left behind by the Conservatives. We shall deliver, as cost-effectively and efficiently as we can, good government for the people of our country.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister will be reassured to know that we accept that the Government need special advisers. That is not a fundamental problem. Government, after all, is about politics, and the need for political advice within the machinery of Government is accepted. It was an established fact under the previous Government. The question is not whether we should have policy advisers of a political character, but what the balance should be between political presentation and what is developed as policy advice.
  I am slightly taken aback by the complacency, or perhaps the inconsistency, of the Conservative attack—it is as if there had been no continuity of practice between
  762
  the previous Conservative Government and the present Labour Government. There were highly political advisers to the previous Government; for example, Bernard Ingham was a highly political member of that Government, who spun stories against Ministers. I suspect that some of the frustration and anger of Conservative Members is due to the fact that Labour have been more successful at using advisers for positive political affect, rather than for the succession of public relations disasters that harried the Tories out of office.
  We need to ask whether we are imposing a more political management on to the civil service. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, does not think so. I do not necessarily disagree, but one or two developments have given rise to the question. For example, to give powers to Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell to direct civil servants raises the question that there could be a tension between political advisers and civil servants—as was pointed out in an intervention. That might compromise the integrity of the service.
  Ed Balls was a special adviser and I do not question his ability or the quality of his advice. However, to take him from that role to the position of chief economic adviser to the Treasury in one seamless move, without open advertisement or consultation raises questions about privilege and the process of association. Somewhere, there must be people who thought that they might have got that job, but, until it was filled, they did not even know that it had been vacant. Those are reasonable questions and the Government should consider them.
  The point has already been made that expenditure on entertaining, on the press, on publicity and on the number of special advisers has risen under the Labour Government. Since they came into office, the number of special advisers has risen from 38 to 74—nearly double. What effect does that have on the political process? It does not always add anything to that process. The Prime Minister may have read in today's press of the collapse in his personal support—he was the most popular politician, but his approval rating is now only plus 9 per cent. The right hon. Lady emerges as the most popular politician in the country, a fact in which she no doubt takes comfort. Perhaps the Prime Minister might consider whether part of that collapse is the result of his and the Government's obsession with news management and presentation over substance. Over time, people will judge Governments on substance.
  Under the previous Government, I sat on several Committees as my party's Treasury spokesman and noted that Labour Members, in opposition, were terrified to commit themselves to any firm policy. Whenever they were under pressure to state their policy, their ploy was to call for a policy review. On our calculations, by the time of the last election, they had asked for 1,000 policy reviews. That might have been understandable when they were in opposition. They wanted to be elected; it saved them from committing to anything and showed that they were interested in policy.
  However, although they are now in government, with the responsibility for making decisions, it does not seem that that instinct has been much curbed. The Government set targets; they set up task forces and review groups, all of which are designed to keep the policy process moving. They produce an annual report in which, miraculously, all their targets appear to have been achieved—although the Government's interpretation of an achievement is not

  763
  what most people would always recognise. For example, one target was that there would be a referendum on Britain's entry into the euro. The report described that as "achieved". We still intend to have a referendum on entry. There are several other targets of the same character.
  The problem is that the Government set and evaluate their own targets and, then, in their annual report, claim that the targets have been achieved. There have been problems with some of the targets. They have used most regularly those for class sizes and waiting lists. Class sizes for years one, two and three have probably gone down, although they have not yet reached the Government's overall objective. However, although it was not part of Labour's pledge, it is noticeable that class sizes for years four, five, six and seven and the sizes of secondary classes have all gone up. That means that the Government's claim was rather partial.
  Hospital waiting lists were coming down, but, after the flu epidemic, it has been acknowledged that they are likely to rise. However, we have discovered that the lists are being reduced by putting people on lists to get on to the waiting lists. The Government may say that they are meeting their targets, but the public say that as that does not change the quality of the service, the targets are not relevant. I do not imply that the targets were not genuine, but they cannot be defined in that narrow way.
  I do not often quote The Daily Telegraph, but its leader of 10 January summarises the matter rather well. It states:
  "Fortunately, on the question of whether the targets are being met, we are able to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. He admits that 'because the targets are demanding, they are not always achieved'. Given that targets—which were always met, naturally—were a favourite tool of Communist governments to demonstrate their supposed efficiency, we should be on the watch for the day when the Government announces that all the trains are running on time. Targets are useful, but only when the electorate, and not the government, is the judge of whether they have been met."
  Mr. Mike Hancock: If my hon. Friend had been in the House earlier this afternoon, he would have heard one such example of over-hype when the Secretary of State for Health told us about 100 new intensive care beds. However, despite the fact that he had had almost a week's notice of today's debate, when push came to shove, he was able to tell us where only eight of them were.
  Mr. Bruce: That is an example of the problem.
  We can all have a little bit of fun at the Government's expense. Sometimes these debates form a legitimate part of that process. However, the Government must address the fact that, if the public become cynical about targets and do not think that they have honestly been met, or if the targets are renewed and redefined when they are not being met, or if the public can tell that what surrounds the targets does not add up—that there are no genuine improvements to the quality of service—no amount of presentation will get the Government off the hook.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is especially remarkable that, during the past few days, in Standing Committee, the Government have rejected attempts by his party and by the Conservatives to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General audits the performance target results?
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. That is a point that we have been making for some time.
  764
  I challenge the Government that—although it might be an uncomfortable suggestion to Governments wrestling with genuine difficulties and uncertainties—the crucial test will be whether government by objectives and outcomes will be a real part of the process, rather than a synthetic sham. If the Government are the only determinant of whether they are achieving their targets and can redefine those targets, the public will become cynical.
  I offer some advice. In their comprehensive spending review, the Government have got into the habit of triple accounting—globally adding up the cumulative effect of all their spending plans to telephone numbers that are meaningless. I doubt that the average Member of the House—never mind the wider public—can really conceive of the difference between £2 billion and £20 billion in regard to what those amounts can achieve. We want to know what the practical difference will be, in a way that we can all understand. By hyping the figures to the largest possible amount, the Government have raised public expectations to an unsustainable degree. They are now reaping the consequences.
  Another problem is the role of the House. I have been in the House for 16 years, visited and talked to parliamentarians in other legislatures and shared experiences with them. By comparison with many others, we are a pretty weak and ineffective Parliament and that is because the Executive do not use Parliament as part of the process. They do not recognise—it makes no difference which party is in government—that politicians from both sides of the House could make a contribution to many policy issues. They have experience of representation, not all of which is party political, and that fact does not deny that the Government will ultimately decide and use their majority to do so.
  When I came to the House, I had the naive belief that we had heated, public debates on the principle of a Bill in the Chamber, but we then went into Committee where everyone sat down and worked through in a business-like way how to make the legislation work. What a load of baloney! I am not saying that it has never happened—there must have been one or two occasions when it has—but I can rarely think of an occasion when a Government have been really willing to work with a Committee in those terms. That makes many Members feel frustrated, given their and the public's expectations of what we should be doing.
  I wholly agree that it would be good if the House had more say in helping to determine Government objectives and on how their targets should be set and monitored. That would raise the standard of debate and public confidence in Parliament and in politics. A bold Government might regard that as something that would benefit them as well as the political process. However, I fear that this Government are more concerned with the management of the process.
  When I read the note on the knowledge network project, which has already been mentioned, I was appalled at what it was supposed to do. According to documents obtained by The Guardian, its objective was to
  "explain the Government's core message so that citizens can get the full facts without going through the distorting prism of media reporting."
  The article continues:
  "It will take the form of a computer network into which every Department can feed their 'lines to take' on every key issue and from which every Department can read."

  765
  The Kremlin would have been proud of that turn of phrase. In other words, the project will produce the line to be defended at all times. It does not provide substance to the belief that there is the degree of inclusiveness that the Government like to boast about.
  Mr. Miller: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of his comments on The Daily Telegraph? He said that he was reluctant to quote from it regularly. That point acknowledged that the process of media communication distorts what is said in the House by, for example, the hon. Gentleman and by Government. Does he not acknowledge that there is a place for direct communication—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman communicates regularly with his constituents—between public and Parliament that bypasses the organs of the daily press?
  Mr. Bruce: Yes. I used a turn of phrase that suggested that the media were some kind of obstacle to the process rather than a different component of it. That is a different matter. My speech has balanced a quote from The Guardian with one from The Daily Telegraph. On this occasion, I agree with what The Daily Telegraph said.
  The Government tell us that we do not understand the process and they change the targets and the terminology. Since the turn of the year, we have seen what I suspect is a whole new battery of neo-Poujadism emanating in particular from the Home Office. Those who deign to criticise the Government or the Government's programme are either described as woolly Liberals or as the massed ranks of Conservatism. That does not leave much room for anyone else. The more spin doctors there are, the more targets they develop. That means more confusion and disillusionment with the process of government.
  The process has sunk to a particular depth in the use of special advisers specifically to brief Labour Members on the party line. That is clear abuse of the process. The Conservatives have come under inquisition for their use of Short money for campaigning purposes. I am not here to defend the Conservative party, but it is difficult to see how using special advisers to brief Labour Members at the taxpayers' expense is different from using Short money to support the Conservative's campaigns. If one is wrong, the other must also be wrong. On that basis, if the Conservatives will have to pay the money back, will the Labour party pay it back to balance things out?
  I wish to raise a serious point—I do not think that this will surprise the House—that explains why I and Liberal Democrats are so committed to radical constitutional reform. We want a written constitution, a representative voting system, a federal constitution and an elected second Chamber to enhance the role of Parliament in developing and monitoring public policy. We believe that such reforms are pivotal to securing that aim.
  On the passivity of the House, can anyone remember when it last rejected even a component of a Budget? We have not rejected a Budget, and even the European Parliament, which is so reviled by the Tory Opposition, has shown more spine than that.
  I am a strong supporter of devolution and I tell those who criticise it that there is something already to be learned from the process that we have set up in Scotland.
  766
  Andrew Cubie's committee, which was appointed by the Scottish Executive, has produced a more considered review of policy on student finance and university funding than anything that the Department for Education and Employment would even be allowed to think about. That is pluralism and it should not be an embarrassment. It is what devolution is designed to do. It allows different ideas to be explored in a different context. However, we hear that Downing street and the Department for Education and Employment are appalled at that degree of independence.
  The truth at the end of the day is that new Labour will reap what it sows. To Liberal Democrats, the desert of Tory spending commitments reaps the whirlwind of public anger over the state of the national health service. Reannouncing the same funding over and over, and triple counting spending pledges will yield good headlines in the short run. However, if responses and resources are not there, the targets are not real and the objectives are not met Alastair Campbell's team may spin like whirling dervishes but it will not fool the British people.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Hilary Benn: I should declare an interest, if not necessarily an expertise, as a former special adviser. It is principally on that subject that I want to contribute to the debate. Four points have been raised about the role of special advisers. They relate to the existence and legitimacy of special advisers, their effect on government and governance, their numbers and the extent to which they help the effectiveness of government.
  There has been much media comment on special advisers and the Opposition have made great play of the issue tonight. For example, the Financial Times has referred to the shadowy role of special advisers in general and a leader in the Evening Standard said:
  "It is a scandal that ministers' special advisers are paid from the public purse to advise their bosses about the likely consequences of their actions on party and public opinion."
  Conservative Members nod, which is helpful because those quotes are from 1989 and 1993 when the Conservative party was in government. They merely demonstrate that advisers work for all Governments and it is right and proper that they should be under continual scrutiny. The righteous indignation to which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) treated us about special advisers and this Government was not quite as righteous as it seemed.
  I shall deal first with legitimacy. The truth is that special advisers have existed in their current form for about a quarter of a century, although I read with interest in the Neill report that the very first special adviser was appointed by Lloyd George. That may not be the best precedent to follow, but it was almost a century ago.
  We know that special advisers are curious creatures in the civil service because they are appointed by Ministers and last only as long as the Minister who appointed them. They are required to abide by the civil service code of conduct but, for obvious reasons, are free from the restrictions on political activity. As I pointed out in a recent debate in Westminster Hall, my letter of appointment rather pointedly stated that special advisers are free from the requirement that normally all civil servants should be appointed on merit. I always thought that that was a rather gentle way for the civil service to remind special advisers that they are not quite the same as the people with whom they are working.

  767
  Why has the system evolved? Rightly, Ministers want a source of advice and expertise that civil servants cannot and, as I think all hon. Members would agree, should not be asked to provide. That expertise, as well as covering the Department's policy area, may deal with presentation of policy. Above all, special advisers bring to the job an understanding and knowledge of the governing party's politics, its history and the background to its policy debates.
  I shall give a simple example. A civil servant could, technically speaking, design a perfect policy, such as—to pick an example at random—the poll tax, but a sensible adviser would recognise it as being politically unworkable and advise against it. It is a great pity that there was not such an adviser in the previous Government because they would have saved billions of pounds if someone had been able to say, "Sorry, that isn't going to work."
  The key point, however, is that Ministers get that advice from a particular perspective, which is a point that the model contract specifically refers to. It says—and I welcome this—that
  "the civil service has no monopoly of policy analysis and advice".
  We could argue, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office pointed out, that the existence of advisers helps to shield civil servants from pressures that they might otherwise face.
  In a very British way, we have evolved a compromise because we have avoided a situation in which Opposition politicians who come into government are forced to leave behind the people with whom they have worked very closely in opposition. In the case of those Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench today, those advisers are paid for out of Short money at public expense, and rightly so. I have no argument with that. We do not put politicians into the civil service machinery bereft of the support and advice network that they have relied on. That would be nonsensical.
  On the other hand, we avoid the spoils system that operates in countries such as the United States, where a change of Administration results in the whole top tier of the civil service being removed and placemen and placewomen being appointed. That is why I think that the Neill committee got it right when it said:
  "special advisers have a valuable role to play".
  I say to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that if there were any evidence of malign influence, a threat to the impartiality of the civil service or any undermining of the values of civil servants, I would have expected the Neill committee to identify that and refer to it in its report. It did not do so because that is not the case. In fact, Neill explicitly recognises the legitimacy of special advisers, and I trust that the House will as well.
  The second issue is the effect of special advisers on the process of government. I happen to think that the current group of special advisers are very professional and effective. Indeed, they are rather more effective than their predecessors before May 1997, which may, in part, explain the Opposition's sense of grievance about them this evening.
  Advisers act as the eyes and ears of Ministers, and with the complexities of modern government, which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to, and the sheer volume of submissions that emerge from what I call the departmental silos and fall on to the Minister's desk, it is important that special advisers support Ministers in trying to sift through those submissions.
  768
  In my experience, the dialogue between advisers and civil servants was helpful in clarifying issues, which meant that the submission that was finally presented to a Minister had benefited from advice from both of those perspectives. Those perspectives are different but they are both recognised within the system. That system can work only on the basis of trust and respect for those different standpoints. It is essential that advisers advise, civil servants advise and Ministers, who are accountable to this House, decide. Nothing must ever get in the way of that fundamental principle.
  On the question of numbers, we must be careful not to confuse influx with influence. The shadow Leader of the House said in his evidence to the Neill committee that we would
  "begin to change the nature of the debate and the way a Civil Service department operates—if the special advisers became, as it were, the dominant influence on the Minister rather than the civil servants."
  That argument has more to do with the relative quality of the advice than with the number of advisers because if one took that argument to its logical conclusion, one adviser could be one too many if he or she were that influential. In practice, as we know, the 70 or so advisers in the civil service are opposed to—I do not mean in a policy sense—several hundred thousand civil servants, which is hardly an equal contest. I do not think that the numbers argument is credible.
  My final point is about effectiveness. I thought that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire strained credulity in a slightly half-hearted contribution, not least because the Government have been extremely effective in organising the machinery of government to try to achieve their objectives.
  I shall reflect for a moment on my experience as a special adviser in the Department for Education and Employment and some of the measures that the Government have set in train. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to the fact that we are on our way to meeting our class size pledge. Hopefully, by the end of this Parliament we will have nearly doubled the number of early years education places and doubled capital investment in school buildings and equipment.
  We are supporting primary schools, in particular, in raising standards of numeracy and literacy. We have gone from having no numeracy and literacy summer schools before the last general election to running 1,500 this year. We have put about 10 million new books into schools, courtesy of the extra money that we have invested. We are investing about £1 billion to support information and communication technologies.
  We have made a record investment in further education, which was sadly neglected and greatly punished under the previous Government. We are working towards enabling 50 per cent. of our young people to benefit from higher education and we have managed to more than halve long-term youth unemployment. I simply say, modestly and quietly, that if that is not getting on with the business of government, and if that is not substance, then I do not know what is.
  There is a great deal still to be achieved. However, what really lies behind the motion is that the Opposition are attacking the messengers, the special advisers, who cannot speak for themselves. I was keen to contribute to the debate because they cannot respond to the attacks that have been made on them tonight. When we come to the

  769
  next general election, I think that the Opposition are afraid that the electorate will demonstrate, as at the previous general election, that they rather like the message.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: In addressing the motion and the Government's amendment, I ask myself why I feel such deep antipathy to the Government's spin-doctoring techniques. In a way, it is because I feel for the Government. The tragedy for the Government and for the country is that they think that they can do no wrong, which is a dangerous thing to believe. To believe one's own propaganda, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) obviously does, is a tragedy for a politician.
  I resent that belief because it leads the Prime Minister into making some serious charges against the Opposition that I do not think are sustainable. Each week, I sit on the Opposition Benches to hear the saintly Prime Minister accuse me of the most heinous crimes against humanity. I am told that I do not want a national health service, to reduce unemployment, to help the developing world or care about crime, poverty and social exclusion because I am a Tory, which makes it impossible.
  I have news for the Prime Minister and for his right hon. and hon. Friends. He is wrong. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House care passionately about such matters. Our difference is often, but not always, about means, not ends. I accept that there are issues on which we disagree about the ends too, such as the future of sterling, the future of the United Kingdom, our right to participate in country sports and to eat particular foods.
  The dreadful way in which the Government have been caught up in the web of their own deception means that they can no longer see that essential truth, and that makes their attacks curiously offensive. The Prime Minister seems genuinely to believe that the answers to the problems that will always exist in any democratic society lie in bigger government and more politicians. That goes to the heart of the Opposition's motion. He seems to believe that the answer to Britain's problem is more politicians in Wales, Scotland and everywhere else, including this place. We should try to reduce the number of Members here, not increase them as the Boundary Commission inevitably does.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Resign.
  Mr. Luff: I will if you will. I am not referring to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that 359 new politicians are the result of the Government's policy, and that is not the answer to our problems. I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office deny the increase in public expenditure for the management of central Government. I have the figures. Last year, we were planning to cut it by £223 million. Instead, the Government increased it by £967 million. That is £1,190 million extra. This year, our planned cut is £114 million. The Government's increase will be £1,104 million. That is a total over two years of £2,408 million. That is the increase in the cost of
  770
  government that the Government have imposed on us. That is because they genuinely believe—this is the tragedy—that that is the right way to run a country. It is not.
  The regional development agencies were rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. He said that they cost about £69 million. These monsters have laboured mightily to bring forward their regional strategies.
  I have the strategy of "Advantage West Midlands", the West Midlands regional development agency. In an earlier debate, I highlighted the facile gibberish of the language in which it is written, but what of the content? The glossy and unreadable document includes such surprising insights as:
  "Research shows that people with the highest skill levels are most likely to find and keep employment and enjoy higher earnings."
  As Michael Caine would say, "Not a lot of people know that."
  Later we read:
  "Transport is seen as being very important for growth."
  I am grateful to the agency for this fresh insight into the workings of the United Kingdom economy.
  When the agency is not offering such insights, it is threatening to meddle where it is not wanted. The document states:
  '"Advantage West Midlands' has no responsibility for housing".
  That does not stop it from stating that it intends
  "to play an effective role in helping to co-ordinate housing and regeneration strategies across the region."
  It knows absolutely nothing about the region. How can it seriously say:
  "It is the blend of culture, unique histories and shared futures that defines the West Midlands"?
  That defines every arbitrarily drawn region of the United Kingdom. It is a load of nonsense. Nothing defines the west midlands except some arbitrary lines drawn on a map by a bureaucrat.
  Mr. Paterson: I entirely endorse all my hon. Friend's comments on regional development agencies and the west midlands region. The people of Shropshire bitterly resent being lumped in with the central conurbation of the west midlands, which will dominate all RDA decisions. They will be the country cousins, left out on a limb.
  Mr. Luff: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, who makes exactly my point. The people of Worcestershire have exactly the same feeling. How do you think I felt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, to read that the West Midlands RDA says implicitly of my constituency:
  "The main problems generally include … too much reliance on farming and forestry"?
  That is an opportunity, not a problem. Birmingham-based bureaucrats of the agency that was imposed on us by the Government do not understand that.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): For the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he was an adviser to Lord Walker, the former

  771
  Secretary of State for the Environment—the very gentleman who drew up the boundaries of the west midlands and the other English regions?
  Mr. Luff: I do not want to have a debate about that. Of course the boundaries are useful for administrative purposes and for gathering statistics, but that does not mean that the people of Worcestershire should be run from Birmingham. Will the Minister get that simple thought into his very small brain?
  Of course we must carve up countries for administrative and statistical purposes. That has some passing relevance, but it does not mean that the historic counties of England must be run from remote places such as Birmingham, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) rightly said.
  It is not just the development agencies, but the Government who write dreadful documents. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is not now present, refer to the wretched little document entitled "The Government's annual report". Rightly, he poured ridicule upon it. It is a check list of completed actions. It states, for example:
  "The Royal Commission on Long-term Care. Done."
  It is true that it has been done. It has been well and truly done, ignored, pigeon-holed and forgotten, because its recommendations were too difficult.
  The report goes on to refer to
  "The referendum on voting systems",
  as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last week. That is said to be "On course." Yes—on course for the waste paper basket. The report continues:
  "Simplify Government. On course. See page 57."
  I saw page 57 and could not understand it.
  A further entry reads:
  "Hold referendum on any EMU decision. Kept."
  Excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did I miss the referendum? Was I asleep?
  The Government had to buy half the copies of this wretched little document. They claim that the other 49,000 were sold. I should love to see Tesco's sales figures. The document should never have been produced. It goes to the heart of this dreadful Government and the motion rightly tabled by the Opposition.
  Mr. Tyrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most extraordinary part of the document is the last page, headed "Your say", which I suppose is Labour's dim attempt at some form of accountability to the public? It states that last year, the Government asked people's views and have published a cross-section of them on the opposite page. All we get back is a little tapestry of cuttings, rather than a serious account of people's views. It is supposed to be a serious public document.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is right. That hardly encourages people to believe that, in the new, open, inclusive style of government of which the Government boast, their views are being taken seriously. I am grateful to him for making an important point.
  With regard to the new deal, the Government are once again in danger of believing their own propaganda. They seem to think that their huge expenditure has created jobs.
  772
  It has not. The jobs were being created by the private sector. Youth unemployment was collapsing under the previous Government because of the success of their economic policies.
  The present Government have spent £20 million of our money—taxpayers' money—on promoting the wretched new deal. They are doing so for party political advantage. They are trying to be seen to do something about unemployment. That is a monstrous use of money. New jobs are being created not by the Government, their bureaucrats or the new deal, but by hard-working small business men and women, who were doing so anyway without the Government's meddling interference.
  Others want to speak, so I shall be brief. The Minister's research was quite good. He suggested that I was a special adviser to Lord Walker of Worcester. I was not. I was a special adviser between 1987 and 1989 to Lord Young of Graffham at the Department of Trade and Industry.
  I freely admit that special advisers have a useful role to play. That is why the previous Government had a number of them. They can bridge the gap between civil service and party, work alongside Parliamentary Private Secretaries on parliamentary liaison, and inject original thinking into policy making. They are an extra set of eyes and ears for the Minister.
  All that is good, but their role is not, as the special advisers of this Government seem to think, to promote party at public expense, to undermine the Government information service or to brief against other Ministers. It is clear that that is happening in spades in the Government.
  We must cap the numbers. What justification is there for increasing the number of special advisers at No. 10 from eight under the previous Government to 22 under the present Government?
  Mr. Tyrie: Twenty five.
  Mr. Luff: Twenty five, I am told—a huge number. The same applies to press officers. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly highlighted the sacking of the Government information officers. It is a scandal—an outrage. The Government's attitude seems to be, "Clear them out and make room for people who are more compliant with our wishes." It is not often appreciated that Alastair Campbell has a spy in every Department. Campbell's cronies bully and intimidate their colleagues and journalists. They may be civil servants now, but a year or two ago, many were Labour press officers or Labour party officials. That is an outrage.
  As Conservative Members frequently point out, the Government are more obsessed with spin doctors than real doctors, and with glamour rather than the gritty reality of improving public services. The Government are run by elites for elites. In November 1998, a letter from Dr. Richard Mullen to The Daily Telegraph discussed the BBC's excellent serialisation of "Vanity Fair" by Thackeray. It also commented on Thackeray's "Book of Snobs". Dr. Mullen said that, in that book, people
  "would find much that is apt today. Thackeray's best writing was done in an age full of prattle about 'reform'—Victorian English for modernisation—when a section of the middle class succeeded in grabbing power from the House of Lords.
  These 'Liberals' ruled for what they endlessly proclaimed was the benefit of 'the People', but their rule always benefited the prattlers themselves. Thackeray was superb in exposing the cant and hypocrisy of such stuff.

  773
  How he would have relished the sight of Blairites invoking the sacred mantra of 'the People', while a deferential 'wait-person' delicately shaves white truffles on to their polenta, or pointing out how they spend more on their wallpaper than they pay hard-working nurses."
  My hon. Friends laugh. I agree that it would be funny if we were not considering a subject as serious as government. It is not funny, but frightening. This bloated, complacent, arrogant Government resemble Falstaff in Verdi's opera or Don Giovanni in Mozart's. Their end was always inevitable; it was only a question of when and how. For the Prime Minister's sake, I hope that the end is characterised by the recantation and forgiveness of Falstaff, not the damnation of Don Giovanni.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: It will be hard to maintain the unusual excitement that was generated by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). Unlike both previous speakers, I have never been a special adviser to the Government, or wished to be such. I have worked in the private sector for 20 years, trying to create wealth in this country. That implies no criticism of hon. Members who have been special advisers, but it shows that other perspectives can inform the debate.
  The charge is that the Government have politicised and fattened central government. I concede that a substantial change has occurred in the way in which central Government govern. That process has not gone far enough, but the right strategic choices have been made. From the mess of departmentalised policy silos, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) referred, and agency government, which was the legacy of the previous Administration, customer and citizen-focused provision, based on measurable objectives, has begun to emerge. From a highly educated but often numbing culture of introversion in our civil service, there are signs of recognition of the need to encompass genuinely new skills and backgrounds and to adopt an outward-looking perspective. From a culture in which ministerial accountability was muddled at best and denied at worst, there is growing recognition of the need to accept ownership of the goals and administrative competence of performance in Government.
  I shall explore those themes. In information technology, strategy, project definition and management have, until now, been handled by individual Departments. That has meant a lack of purchasing strategy. A multiplicity of purchasing decisions makes for increased inefficiency and overall waste. A confusion of technologies and methodologies makes assembling a complex project difficult. There is no critical mass of project skills. Reference has been made in previous debates to the relatively small number of civil servants who have key skills in managing complex information technology projects. Silos with often impermeable boundaries mean that no learning occurs from experiences elsewhere. It is hard to grasp why something goes wrong or why other things succeed in particular projects, and to learn from that outside the silo.
  It is hard for citizen access to be organised beyond simply the front end of a web page and there is no governmental strategic vision relating information services to policy goals. Those gaps have been obvious for a considerable time—certainly throughout the latter part of the previous Administration—and the outcome has
  774
  been an array of failed, poor-quality, expensive systems. That process was inevitable, but the Government have recognised those faults and started to remedy them, strengthening the central IT function and developing a strategy.
  We have made a critical start and a key choice in setting things right: our civil service culture has recognised the need to increase recruitment from the private sector, introduce outward-looking processes such as benchmarking, recognise the need for cultural change and develop new leaders, greater openness and greater co-working.
  Encompassed in Sir Richard Wilson's report, which I suspect has probably not met the eyes of many Conservative Members, is a clear vision for the civil service of the future. It is relatively brief, and is worth repeating in full because it places in context some of the remarks about the demoralisation of the civil service and its difficulties in working with the Government:
  "Our aim is to help make the UK a better place for everyone to live in, and support its success in the world. We want to be the best at everything we do.
  In support of successive administrations, we will:
  act with integrity, propriety, and political impartiality, and select on merit; put the public's interests first; achieve results of high quality and good value; show leadership and take personal responsibility; value the people we work with and their diversity; innovate and learn; work in partnership; be professional in all we do; be open and communicate well".
  The report clearly bears no resemblance whatever to Conservative Members' perception of morale and focus in the civil service, which is serving today's Government and will serve future Governments of any political complexion. It paints a picture of focused determination, not demoralisation or despair.
  The establishment of cross-departmental teams to tackle a wide range of issues is a hallmark of this Government and the phrase "joined-up government" has entered the dictionary. I refer to the White Paper on modernising government, which gives some of the reasons why joined-up government—which is an innovation of theirs, in large part—is necessary:
  "People had to give the same information more than once to different—or even the same—organisations. A mother of a boy with physical disabilities said: 'I have lost count of the times I have had to recount my son's case history to professionals involved in his care.'
  There is often no obvious person to help those most in need to find their way around the system.
  There is a lack of integrated information to enable service providers to give a full picture of what help might be available.
  There is minimal use of new technology. Most government Departments have a website, but few allow people to fill in forms on line. And government websites are not well linked to other relevant sites."
  That paints a pretty clear picture of the problem that faced the Government on coming to office: a fragmented service often offered excellent quality in isolation, but did not work together to achieve the needs of the individual customer or citizen it was working towards. It had failed to adopt business practices—one would hardly say modern business practices—that focused on the needs of the customer or individual it was seeking to serve. Instead, it focused introvertedly on the departmental mechanisms on which people's rewards were often based.
  At last, one can expect issues of social exclusion to be addressed by all relevant agencies. The sure start initiative and others for tackling drugs and for redesigning our

  775
  criminal justice system all require a multi-agency, multi-departmental approach. That is to be commended, yet we have heard not a word of such innovation from Conservative Members.
  When I attended a meeting to discuss rough sleepers recently, I was struck by the immediate recognition of the important role of the Ministry of Defence. In fact, the importance of that role would be obvious to any citizen dealing with such problems. As most of us will have observed, many who find a place on the streets have left the armed services relatively recently. It is shameful to have to admit that the recognition of the need for Departments to work together to address problems is novel. We did not see a great deal of it during the 18 years that we witnessed previously.
  The establishment of regional development agencies has been criticised today, but I think that it has enabled local communities to apply upward pressure in arguing for joint initiatives. Regional offices of government have begun to consider joint solutions to many obvious regional problems. It is easy to deride the way in which an RDA has drawn up its strategy. I do not live in, or represent, an area in the west midlands; my seat is in the east midlands. The strategy in the east midlands has been widely commended, has set extremely high standards and has drawn attention to a variety of issues that require attention, across the entire scope of government service.
  At the highest level, the performance and innovation unit has addressed a range of cross-departmental issues for the future. We look forward to, for example, its pronouncements on the study of the Post Office, which will almost certainly demand a cross-departmental response. High-level reports such as that provide a critical input into Government thinking for the future. The comprehensive spending review also addressed the need to realign budgets in the direction of clear political goals.
  As for accountability, in debates such as this, one is often struck by the shortness of Conservative memories. Few could forget the performance of the former Home Secretary, who claimed that the conduct of prisons was a matter not for him but for the Prison Service— [Interruption.] I am afraid that my hearing is sometimes very poor in the Chamber. I did not catch what was said by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
  Mr. Paterson: I said that the former Home Secretary had reduced the amount of crime, which I would have thought was the fundamental role of a Home Secretary.
  Mr. Todd: That trend has continued under the present Government, if we take their time in office as a whole. In any event, that does not constitute a response to the question of accountability, which I understood to be the focus of the debate requested by the Opposition.
  I was present at the debate on the Passport Agency and its performance. It is worth contrasting the performance of the last Home Secretary with the frank apology offered by the current Home Secretary. There was no attempt to blame the civil service; rather, there was a recognition that Ministers were accountable for performances of that kind. The stark contrast between the two approaches struck me at the time.
  The phrase "boom and bust" has become almost a catchphrase in Government, so I will use another. We will take no lessons on this from the last Government. I have
  776
  not used those words before, but they seem singularly appropriate in this instance. When it comes to accountability in Government, there is little to be learned from the 18 years of Conservative administration.
  Without dissolving that accountability, the present Government have also sought to consult more widely. The pre-legislative process has been extended to cover major Bills, which has helped to isolate the issues that divide us—the existence of such issues is inevitable—from genuine discussion of how best to manage specific policy choices. Changing a complex and history-ridden institution and political process is hard and frustrating, but the right choices have been made so far. The management of those choices will be challenging, and mistakes will be made. Improving management quality at both civil service and political level will be necessary, but excellent progress has been made.
  The motion snipes at the fringes of the issue. The Opposition spurned the opportunity to tackle many of these opportunities during their 18 years in government, and I see little reason to listen to them now.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in the debate on the cost of central Government.
  I thought that it would be interesting to go back to 1997, when the Government set out with such high hopes. The Labour manifesto bluntly said:
  "We have modernised the Labour Party and we will modernise Britain. This means knowing where we want to go; being clear-headed about the country's future; telling the truth; making tough choices … being prepared to give a moral lead where government has responsibilities it should not avoid."
  I wonder what Lord Winston thinks of that in the light of this week's events.
  I have much simpler beliefs. I think that people are happier with less government, fewer politicians, fewer bureaucrats and therefore less taxation. I can think of no country that has been made more successful by an increase in Government activity, or in taxation. In the light of that, I am appalled at what has happened in the past two and three quarter years.
  The second line of the motion expresses regret that
  "this means resources are not reaching front-line public services".
  They certainly are not in Shropshire. Not one publicly funded service in Shropshire is adequately funded. The Government have wilfully shifted £500 million from the shire counties to the inner cities. One can see it immediately.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) dug out some figures in a written answer, which show that the average pupil in a Shropshire primary school receives £2,220, whereas a pupil in a Southwark primary school receives £3,396. Resources are not reaching front-line public services in Shropshire.
  We hear that, instead of being 6.1 per cent., this year's standard spending assessment increase is only 5.4 per cent. That is another £500,000 to £600,000 that the people of Shropshire will not get and were expecting. Amazingly, the fire brigade is 47 per cent. underfunded. It bought no new fire engines in 1998. It is struggling to see how it will afford to buy any more this year, with one pump costing £130,000. Resources are not reaching front-line services, such as the fire brigade.

  777
  West Mercia—this affects my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—has the lowest net expenditure per 1,000 of population in the shire counties. To reach the average, it would need an increase of £14.3 million. To reach the highest level, it would need a £55.3 million increase. It is clear that resources are not reaching front-line services, such as policing in West Mercia.
  Sixty-seven per cent. of people in Shropshire drive to work in a car and 97 per cent. of goods go by motorised lorry. There is a £100 million backlog on the roads.
  Mr. Tyrie: I wondered whether you had had any notification of that. Has there been any accountability to you, or to local people about those changes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must use the correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Tyrie: Has there been any accountability to my hon. Friend about the lack of resources?
  Mr. Paterson: No. Those are arbitrary decisions by a central Government dominated by urban interests. They ignore national interests, too. Major road schemes are a constant battle because the Government have an in-built prejudice against the motorised vehicle.
  In the light of the figures that I have mentioned, it is staggering to see what has happened to the cost of running Government Departments. In 1997–98, the cost was £13,246 million. It rose by an amazing £1,104 million in 1998–99. That would provide 11 district hospitals, probably 110,000 hip operations at today's figures, over 60,000 E grade nurses and 36,000 junior doctors. Those are striking figures for the general public to ponder when they think of the crisis in health and in Government services elsewhere.
  Where is that money going? Before Christmas, I tabled a written question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and it is already out of date. I asked how many special advisers there were. I was told that there were 68, but an addendum to the written answer gave another six. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has managed to elicit information showing that the number has been ratcheted up to 77. They are also not cheap, those boys. Moreover, the bill has increased from £1.8 million in 1996–97, to an estimated£3.9 million in 1999–2000. They also spent £500,000 on jollies abroad.
  Taxpayers in Shropshire wonder what they are getting out of those special advisers. What have they got out of the antics of Alastair Campbell, who is paid by the taxpayer a cool £93,562 annually? This week, his service was to tent-peg into the ground a real expert—and member of the Labour party—who understands health problems and was promoted to the Lords for his expertise in health matters.
  What did Lord Winston say before he had his talk with Alastair Campbell? In the New Statesman, he said:
  "There are fewer IVF treatment cycles under this Government than there were under the Tories … One could not be anything but unhappy about that. There is a lot wrong with the Health Service and no one is prepared to say so … It's just gradually deteriorating because we blame everything on the previous Government."
  778
  After Lord Winston received a wet sandbag behind his right ear, he said:
  "I certainly do not believe … that the NHS is worse under this Government than the last Government."
  In the New Statesman, Lord Winston said:
  "Our reorganisation of the Health Service was very bad. We have made medical care deeply unsatisfactory for a lot of people. We've always had this right, but monolithic view, that there should be equality throughout at the point of delivery. All very good stuff, but it isn't working."
  After Lord Winston's interview with Alastair Campbell, he said:
  "I believe that the basic direction of NHS policy is right under this Government and in primary health care there have been considerable improvements. We now need to see these in hospitals and specialist services in particular."
  It is a real disservice to the British people that Alastair should be paid more than £90,000 annually to distort entirely the debate on health. Lord Winston is a real expert and has genuine points to make on a matter of national interest that affects every citizen, but taxpayers' money has been spent to shut him up. He has gone to ground, and we have not heard from him since. It is disgraceful.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) endorsed that view. On 14 January, in The Scotsman, he bravely said:
  "Special Advisers have become an abomination. They cause little but sickness in the body politic. They intrigue and chatter, causing misunderstandings about policy … I just do not think that those who engage in this kind of activity should be paid for by the taxpayer."
  I heartily endorse that view.
  Politicisation of the civil service has become particularly apparent in relation to Government information officers. Why, since the 1997 general election, have 16 of the 18 most senior press officers been either removed, moved sideways or pensioned off? Perhaps it is worth listening to the words of Mr. Andy Wood, who was replaced as director of information at the Northern Ireland Office. He said:
  "At principal and senior information officer level, discontent with the increasingly politicised atmosphere in which they have to work is running at a high rate."
  What about task forces? In November 1999, a report conducted by Democratic Audit—an independent research group at the university of Essex—was published. It identified 318 task forces, on which 2,500 appointees sit. What do the task forces do? They review. Subsequently, the Government received bad press for having too many reviews—so we had a review of reviews, resulting in a ban on reviews. I suspect that, at the next stage, we may progress to a review of bans and that, subsequently, we may come full circle and have a ban on bans. One really wonders where that money is going and what it is achieving.
  We should also examine expenditure on devolution. We now have 359 more elected politicians and are spending £120 million more on the cost of elected representatives. Before the referendum, in the White Paper, the Scottish people were told that their Parliament would cost them £50 million. On the latest estimate, however, the building alone will cost £109 million.
  We should again ask the West Lothian question, which has been much publicised in the press: why should decisions on the roads and health of the people of

  779
  Shropshire be made by hon. Members from north of the border, whereas I have no say there? There is no equity in the arrangement, and it cannot last.
  The same is true of the Welsh Assembly, which has more impact on my constituents. Its costs are running at £15 million to £20 million. The cost of the temporary and permanent accommodation is estimated at £17 million to £20 million. However, the situation could get worse because, amazingly, the building that has been designed is too big for the plot available. There could be yet more cost for the benighted British taxpayer. The organisation is also inefficient. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, of which I am a member, has great trouble in getting the Welsh Assembly to answer letters even to set up meetings.
  There are other outrageous costs that have upset my constituents, particularly in the farming sector, which has taken a hammering under this Government. Farm incomes were at record levels under the last Government, but they have now plummeted. Pig farms are closing every week and milk prices are at rock bottom. What did my farmers think when the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the previous Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, spent £930,000 relocating MAFF offices and making extravagant trips on Concorde? There is real arrogance in the Government. They must learn that 1 May 1997 did not settle history for good.
  The Government also spend huge amounts on publicity. The amount spent by Government Departments on opinion poll research, media advertising, direct mail publicity, press releases, websites and extra publicity totals an astonishing £107,184,624. A lot of that is spent very badly. I shall give just one example that annoyed my local farmers. When the British cattle movement service helpline was set up, 109,000 leaflets were issued, of which 50 per cent. contained errors in the address. A letter of apology then had to be issued to livestock farmers. The total cost of the apologies was £45,000. There is not time to give further examples.
  The Labour Government set out with high hopes and an excessive belief in their ability to deliver good. They are failing, and many people resent the extraordinary increase in the cost of central Government, which is not benefiting them in their everyday lives. I support the motion.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) expressed concern about the relevance of Committees and even debates on the Floor of the House at the moment. I understand his worry, but the quality of the official Opposition is so poor that it is no wonder there is a problem. The debate has illustrated that in spades.
  I was going to refer to the role of special advisers, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) was so eloquent on the subject that I shall not develop the argument. I have known him for longer than anyone who was listening to him—with one right honourable exception, who was sitting in the corner like a cat at the cream, justifiably proud of my hon. Friend's speech. In all the time I have known my hon. Friend as a special
  780
  adviser, I do not remember him ever straying from the lines that were developed in the contracts that were rightly in place before he came to the job.
  Mr. Letwin: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to adjust something that he has said. Does he not think it odd that he attributes only to the—no doubt existing—failings of the Opposition the lack of willingness of Ministers to adjust in Committee, given that we are currently witnessing repeated ministerial resistance to efforts in Standing Committee on the part of the Public Accounts Committee—including the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) who leads for the Labour party on the PAC, and other Labour Members, as well as the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives— to establish a national accounts commission to settle accounts independently and to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit them by enforcement? Is not that proof that he is wrong and that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was right?
  Mr. Miller: If the hon. Gentleman has an axe to grind about the Public Accounts Committee, I suggest that he keep it with the PAC. I was just about to praise the decision of one of his right hon. Friends—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who set up the Government's central IT unit. When he did so, I said that it was an impossible function and that it was not going to work. There was not the political will, because of the lack of co-ordination on the part of Ministers in that failing Cabinet, to make that central IT unit develop and flourish, as it has done under this Government. There was no willingness to embrace the kind of change to which I shall refer.
  I want to concentrate my remarks on a phrase in the amendment, referring to the role of Government in the context of the "Modernising Government agenda". The legacy of the structures and systems over which the previous Administration presided is in many areas the difficulty, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) gave a good example. When we were in opposition, the Tories told us time and again that they knew how to run businesses. If that is how they run businesses, God help British business.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire was emphasised time and again in research that I did in the period leading up to the publication of the White Paper "Modernising Government". On page 25 of the White Paper, a chart illustrates the number of organisations a person needing long-term care may have to deal with. It is a terrifying list—the whole page shows a complex chart. That is the case time and again when we look at key life events.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) introduced the White Paper, the phrase "life events" was ridiculed by Opposition Members. They may shake their heads, but it is recorded in Hansard. That part of the White Paper was regarded as trivial, but it is not—it is a central area on which we must concentrate.
  I looked in detail at the example of the number of organisations that a person has to deal with following a death in the family. Someone came up with the record number of 23. That is absurd. When one is dealing with something that is so painful and personal, one finds that one must deal with people in the hospital and with the

  781
  doctor who issues a death certificate. One is then wandering in a paper maze, trying to find out what to do when one is least well-equipped to deal with it. That is the kind of administrative nightmare that we must unravel in developing the modernisation of our Government.
  The philosophy must be based on better service to the customer. There is no doubt that public service needs to be reformed and modernised. Again, the word "modernised" is often ridiculed by Opposition Members. I would remind them of a paper placed in the Library on 15 December—the report to the Prime Minister from Sir Richard Wilson, the head of the home civil service. Under the heading "civil service reform", Sir Richard makes it clear that, in the autumn, at Sunningdale, the permanent heads of the main departments who make up his management board pledged themselves personally to drive forward a new agenda of civil service reform, both corporately and in modernising Government. I am certain that the Opposition would not suggest that Sir Richard Wilson was exceeding his brief by using words such as modernisation, which they ridicule time and again. I genuinely commend that document to the Opposition. I invite them to remember that we are here to deliver services to citizens, and our task is to improve those delivery mechanisms from the shambles that we inherited.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Everybody accepts that Governments of all hues are less accountable to the House than they used to be. I do not think that there are any takers for any other view. The health announcement that the Prime Minister made on the Frost programme is a reflection of that—it was the biggest single spending commitment of this Parliament and it was made on a television programme at 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning, instead of to the House of Commons. That would have been inconceivable 20, or even 10, years ago.
  We are living in an age in which Parliament is increasingly bypassed. The press do not get their information from watching our proceedings: they go directly to civil servants whom they hope will leak them information or they talk to Ministers who definitely leak them information. The public do not watch our proceedings much: they watch their elected representatives performing on television in interviews. There has been a steady erosion of the importance and relevance of the House of Commons in British public life, as I am sure the father of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) would wholeheartedly agree.
  The Prime Minister almost wholly controls the House of Commons and he is in the process of ensuring that he can put his placemen into the other half of Parliament. That is mostly what the reform of the House of Lords is about. A group of people who had no logical right to be there—the hereditary peers—but who were at least independent, have been removed and are being replaced by appointed representatives, a disproportionate number of whom are from the Labour party. Some 195 life peers have been appointed by the Prime Minister, which is fast
  782
  approaching as many in two and a half years as the Conservative Administrations between 1979 and 1997 appointed in 18 years.
  Mr. Neil Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for every 10 of Tony's cronies in the House of Lords, there are four of Charlie's plants and 12 of little Willie's silly billies?
  Mr. Tyrie: That does not merit a response.
  We must ask what other ways there are to hold Prime Ministers to account. Prime Ministers have, from time to time, dominated the House of Commons, but even then some checks on them have operated. Prime Ministers have historically been accountable to the Cabinet. Even Margaret Thatcher in her strongest moments was accountable to a small group in the Cabinet and she never really succeeded in ruling alone.[Laughter.] Those who laugh at that idea have little knowledge of the inside workings of the Thatcher Administration in the mid-1980s. If they care to read the memoirs of Lord Howe or Lord Lawson, they will see that what I am saying is accurate. Indeed, it is one of the reasons behind her fall.
  This Prime Minister is accountable to nobody in Government. The Cabinet has become virtually a rubber stamp. Historically, Prime Ministers have generally also been held accountable to some degree by the internal party democracy from which they sprang. However, I doubt whether the parliamentary Labour party acts as an effective check on the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the party's national executive council has any teeth. Labour Members may tell me differently and be able to recount occasions when they have knocked the Prime Minister off course and caused him to listen carefully to all their utterances. However, I do not see Labour Members rushing to give me examples of events. I do not think they have taken place.
  The Prime Minister has more or less abandoned all pretence at dispersing power in his party, in Cabinet or to Parliament. He talks openly about the need for a strong centre.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is understandable for a new Prime Minister and his party to believe their rhetoric at the beginning of a period of office? In such circumstances, is not it likely that the party will allow that Prime Minister more latitude than when the rhetoric turns out not to be convincing?
  Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree.
  The Prime Minister has appointed a coterie in No. 10 to ensure that the strong centre can become meaningful. That is why 25 advisers sit in No. 10 Downing street, compared with the five or six that Margaret Thatcher had, and the eight that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had.
  There has been a sharp increase in the number of advisers throughout Whitehall. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central made a number of interesting points, which I shall address in turn. Although I disagree with it, his speech was one of the most perceptive and thoughtful to be made by a Labour Member tonight.

  783
  It is worth reminding the House of the facts. Margaret Thatcher began with seven advisers. When she left office, there were about 20 of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon inherited that number, and there were 38 when he left office. This Prime Minister began with 53 advisers. After nine months, there were 67, and now there are 77. The numbers are rising steadily, and the ratchet effect is inevitable.
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office said that the Prime Minister's pledge of an initial cost envelope of £1.8 million would be adhered to. That is nonsense: by November 1997, the cost envelope had risen to £2.6 million, and it now stands at £4 million. That excludes some pension costs and all secretarial support and office costs. To comply with the Prime Minister's 1997 pledge, there will either have to be mass sackings, or all the advisers will have to take a pay cut. I do not know how the target of £1.8 million will be adhered to. Something pretty drastic would have to happen, but of course the Prime Minister is not going to ask for anything of the sort.
  Advisers have a legitimate role. I strongly support the introduction of outside advice into Whitehall. However, it is not acceptable for the massive increase in the number of advisers to be accompanied by a reorientation towards highly party political work. Of course there was a party political aspect to being a special adviser when I was in Whitehall but, according to anecdotal accounts from people in the civil service with whom I used to work, that element has increased dramatically. Those accounts are also supported by evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Administration when it investigated the Government information service some time ago.
  Incidentally, the Minister said that civil servants had not complained about that trend. In fact, they have complained a great deal, and some—especially those who have left the service—have been prepared to go public. I have no time to read all the evidence, but I urge the Minister to study the evidence from Mr. Steve Reardon. He said that advisers
  "blurred management lines and proper demarcation lines … and served to put considerable strains on the relationships between private offices, ministers and the press secretary which had not previously existed."
  He added that the relationship with the special advisers was difficult. Numerous other former civil servants are prepared to attest to those difficulties.
  The problem is that there is no clear demarcation line to limit party political work. That is why I wrote to Lord Neill with several recommendations. The first was that there should be a cap on the number of advisers. The second was that there should be a code of conduct creating that demarcation line. The third was that Permanent Secretaries should be given the power of, and responsibility for, enforcing contracts and the code of conduct. I am very pleased that Lord Neill appears to have accepted all three recommendations.
  We could go down a different route for our civil service. The American system, for example, has hundreds of appointees. France has the Cabinet system, putting a few key people into private offices and turning them into Cabinets. That answers the question of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central; he asked how 70 people can take on thousands of civil servants. It is not the numbers that count—indeed, the hon. Gentleman said so elsewhere in
  784
  his speech. What counts is whether those people are in key positions to enable them effectively to take over part of the work formerly undertaken by civil servants. We will be moving towards that once the special adviser numbers increase to the extent that they have small teams operating in private offices.
  We must put a stop to the growth in advisers. We are seeing the creation of what amounts to a campaign team for the re-election of the Labour party, working in Whitehall and paid for by the taxpayer. That is wholly unacceptable.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have had the privilege of listening to all the debate this evening. Although I admit to being pretty disappointed by some of the contributions, I strongly support others.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) called for transparency in government and the need for a reform on spending. He said that his Administration had had a grip on administrative costs, and that they had sought to hold executives to account. I presume that they thought that the most effective way of doing that was to cut the number of civil servants by a third.
  I was disappointed, to say the least, at the hon. Gentleman's contribution, and at those of the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire descended into a flash flood of emotion and, as we know, flash floods wreck and do not build. I suppose that wrecking and building were characteristics of the previous Administration.
  I want to talk about something far more significant than the appointment of 70 advisers—namely, what the Government have done for business. They have sought to put in place the structures and processes to make legislation far more effective for business. They want to be accountable to this income-generating activity on which we all depend.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has already said that legislation had previously received some pre-legislative scrutiny. That is simply not adequate when we consider the mass of legislation affecting the business community that the previous Administration brought before the House.
  As a business person at the time, I perceived the legislation as being introduced without review of what went before. I received multiple diktats from the same Department in one week. It was evident that the right hand never understood, or even knew, what the left hand was doing. That led to a great deal of frustration and confusion. At no time did anybody ask me for my opinion. I wrote to many individuals in numerous Departments trying to explain the daily difficulties that I faced as a direct consequence of their activity—and I am still waiting for a response.
  It was with pleasure that I noted that on coming to power, the Government immediately established the regulatory impact unit. It is not a glamorous unit, but it seeks to do what most businesses want the Government to do—to scrutinise each piece of legislation with regard to its impact on business. That is to be welcomed. It requires Departments to do something that they have

  785
  never done before. Guidelines have been produced to help them execute this task. They were desperately needed, as each Department decided what was appropriate in the light of its own guidelines, so the effectiveness of each Department could not be compared and contrasted. Some hon. Members will have noticed that legislation is now accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment, a vital document that has arisen not as a consequence of civil service input, but as a direct result of communication and consultation with the groups affected by Bills.
  We heard a lot about deregulation and red tape under the previous Administration, who set great store by what they were sweeping away. Let me put their efforts into context. Much to the relief of the business community, the Conservative Government enacted the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That was supposed to make great changes for the business community, but it did not.
  Since 1994, the number of orders pursued as a result of the Act is 46. The business community, at a conservative estimate, has an annual turnover of £1 million billion, but over the past three years the reduction resulting from the Act has been £120 million. That does not make a great deal of difference to business. We have tinkered at the edges rather than achieving fundamental root-and-branch re-evaluation of regulations that we expect businesses to continue to follow long after they have ceased to be effective or competitive.
  I welcome the inclusion in the Queen's Speech of a regulatory reform Bill, which will impact both on business and on public sector Departments. That represents a major and welcome shift in scrutiny. Significant sums go to the public sector, and we need to move from legislation that is no longer effective and constrains the public sector towards meaningful legislation that will enhance activity.
  Finally, the previous Government may have been accountable, but by conducting a crusade against administration, they removed the structures by which they might have listened to the people they purported to serve. They served themselves; we accept that communication costs money while seeking to be an effective and accountable Government.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: We have heard much interesting discourse this evening. Alas, the Chamber has not been very full, although the subjects under discussion are almost as important as those that attracted a larger audience earlier.
  Our starting point was costs. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) spoke eloquently about the £1 billion a year more that is being spent on the apparatus of government. The Minister for the Cabinet Office sought to make light of that figure, saying that it took no account of inflation. One could almost hear Sir Humphrey telling her so. Alas, on accrued calculation, the increase between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 exceeds the rate of inflation by about £500 million. That is a significant real-terms increase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was keen to point out the contrast between that increase and what the Government spend in his constituency, where the costs of publicity have risen faster than the amounts spent on the ground. We turned next to
  786
  special advisers and information officers, and my hon. Friend raised the role of Alastair Campbell and the notorious silencing of Lord Winston—now to be known as the silencing of the lamb.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who has made a notable contribution on the question of special advisers, identified a trend that we must admit occurred under previous Governments, but which has been accelerated by the present one. As he pointed out, we are heading remorselessly towards the establishment of campaign teams in Whitehall that serve to extend the principle of elective dictatorship. They give the Prime Minister ever-increasing control. Again, that is not a new phenomenon, but it has been accelerated under the Labour Government.
  There has been an increase in the number of special advisers, an increase in political appointments to information positions and an increase in costs. Of course, there is a connection between them—one leads, in small part, to the other.
  Other matters are deeper and far more significant. In a remarkable speech, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) said something that is of the greatest possible significance to the House. There were moments when, from his intonation, I thought that I was listening to his father, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Alas, there were not moments when, from the contents of his remarks, I thought that I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the protection of the House and its prerogative.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central told us that he celebrated the great virtuosity with which the Government have used the machinery of government to achieve their ends—that was the broad gist of his remarks. He is right—unqualifiably right. The Government have shown great virtuosity in using the machinery of government to achieve their own ends. The problem is what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) described. The end that the Government have in mind is not merely that of governing—no reason why they should not use the machine to achieve that—but much more: they are determined to use government as a means of remaining in government. That notorious annual report is the supreme example of that.
  When the Minister for the Cabinet Office replied to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, she made light of all that. She said that there were no real complaints from civil servants: no one thought that there had been any serious politicisation of the civil service— no, no, nothing of the kind. I draw her attention to the statement that, at principal and senior information officer level, discontent with the increasingly politicised atmosphere in which those officers have to work is running at a high rate. Who said that? Was it some Conservative spokesman? Was it somebody who had nothing to with the right hon. Lady? No, it was Mr. Andy Wood, the director of information during her tenure at the Northern Ireland Office. She knows whereof she speaks, because she has been one of its prime exponents.
  According to the right hon. Lady's information officer, she has helped to ensure that the Government's brilliant performance—we have to grant them that—has been better than that of any previous Government at using the machinery of government to achieve their own ends. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also pointed that out. The

  787
  Government have attacked the Opposition. If possible, they have obliterated the Opposition through big tentery— the use and manipulation of the media—as never before and never so brilliantly. They have made an effort to use the fact of being in power to remain in power.
  I emphasise that fact, because it is a remarkable attack not only on the Opposition and on the civil service, but on our constitution. Above all, our constitution depends on the fact that the people who gain power do not use it to remain in power. The cardinal feature of a democratic constitution is that those who find themselves the tenants of power cannot abuse that power to obliterate democracy thereafter.
  The situation in this country is strange. We do not have a written constitution of the kind for which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) calls. There is nothing to govern the activity of our Government or our politicians—nothing but the procedures of the House and our ability to interrogate and to hold to account. The sad truth is that, because under its procedures the House is run by the majority that is run by the Government, we cannot hold Governments to account unless they are governed by the procedure and the convention enshrined in the civil service.
  Our civil service is not just a set of servants of the Government of the day. They are the servants of the Crown and the state in the profound sense that they are there to enshrine proper procedure and to protect the veracity of the information flowing from Government to the populace so that we in this place can hold Government to account and can argue the truth about facts and debate policies. If the Government use the civil service, politicise it, surround it with campaign teams, put in special advisers and make sure that it turns its attention to producing annual reports that are mere examples of self-congratulation, they will begin to undermine the constitutional foundations of our democracy.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is making a remarkably powerful speech and I entirely agree with him. It is in the nature of party politics that parties do their utmost to remain in power. However, the Labour party, which is now in government, expects the taxpayer to pay for what used to be a charge on a political party. Is that process not part of an undesirable atrophy of the political parties in this country?
  Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government seek to use the taxpayer for their own party political ends. He is right to say that it is legitimate for a political party to seek to remain in power and that it is wrong for it to use taxpayers' funds—£1 billion more of them—to achieve that aim. Above all, it is wrong for a Government to use the civil service in that way. That undermines the civil service as the guardian of our constitution and undermines the ability of this place to hold the Government to account. In the end, that is what counts most.
  If I had to trade that £1 billion—or several billion more—and the special advisers across Whitehall who do the Prime Minister's bidding for the sovereign integrity of the civil service as the guarantor of the veracity of Government information and the procedures that enable us to hold them to account, I would do the trade. The Government do not offer us that trade. They offer us
  788
  expense, the addition of advisers everywhere, the campaign teams and finally the corruption of the politicisation of the civil service, which offers an end to our constitutional integrity. That is the charge, and I hope it sticks.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Before I respond to the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), may I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Wigan (Mr. Turner) for their speeches and interventions? The special mixture of integrity and knowledge of the subject that they showed bodes well for future Labour Front-Bench teams in government when I hope to be collecting my zimmer from the Cabinet Office. On the Government Back Benches is a range of Members who will be able to take the Government forward to their second, third and fourth terms.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) does not take this personally, but, as I listened to him, I almost lost the will to live. He said that, when the Labour party was in opposition, it had policy reviews, but no commitments. What about the new deal and the national minimum wage for more than 2 million people and what about linking the new deal with economic stability to provide 600,000 new jobs, more than halve youth unemployment and halve long-term unemployment? We have reformed the criminal justice system by providing more than £19 billion to help and put £21 billion into education with more to come. We have put billions into urban regeneration and social housing, and provided more rights for consumers and for workers, who have the social chapter and the right to paid holidays for the first time.
  However, I make an apology to the hon. Gentleman. We made no mention before the election of the introduction of the working families tax credit, which is the biggest boon to cutting family poverty in Britain this century. We did not mention the record increase in child benefit or the introduction of a minimum income guarantee for pensioners. I apologise for that, but pensioners, mothers and working families with the working families tax credit do not want us to apologise. They say, "Thank God we elected a Labour Government in 1997".
  I turn now to the speeches by the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire and for West Dorset. They demonstrated the three phases that the Tories have gone through since their landslide defeat. The first phase is the one in which Tories said, "I can't believe it. I've lost the ministerial car and the special advisers." However, I see that some of those advisers have washed up on the Tory Back Benches. Some former Tory Members got their P45 from their constituents and had to apply for a proper job for the first time in 18 years.
  The second phase was denial. The Tories told themselves that they had done nothing wrong except perhaps that they had not been extreme enough, right-wing enough or Conservative enough. They invented a world in which there was no Tory sleaze, no incompetence and no favours for friends.

  789
  Tonight, they have entered the third phase, which I call the brass neck phase. During this phase they are brazening it out and trying to give the impression that all they left us was a golden legacy. What a legacy. [Interruption.] Hold on a minute, lads. When we came to power in 1997, 40 per cent. of the largest quangos were chaired by Tory party members or people who had donated to Tory party funds. Those people, mainly men, were responsible for dispensing billions of pounds of public funds. They had been appointed for the sole reason that they were Tory party activists or had donated to the slush funds that the Tories have yet to open up to public scrutiny.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No, I gave up ten minutes of the time for my wind-up speech so that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could speak, although they did not make the best use of their time.
  Sir Donald Wilson, the former president of Chester Conservative Association—Chester was a Labour gain at the last election—was appointed chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority. He made a complete mess of that, but was he sacked? No, unfortunately, he was transferred to run my health authority, the North West regional health authority. Sir Bryan Askew, a defeated Tory candidate in Penistone and in York, was given a job running the Yorkshire health authority.
  Did Lord Crickhowell, a defeated Tory MP and ex-Cabinet Minister, go on the dole? No, he was paid £51,000 to run the National Rivers Authority. Michael Pickard became chairman of the London Docklands development corporation. He got that job for the simple reason that he founded the chain of Happy Eater restaurants, which are the favourite eating establishments of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The Tories really investigated the credentials of people they put in charge of public funds. David Plastow ran the Medical Research Council for the simple reason that his company consistently donated to the Tory party.
  When Mrs. Thatcher came to power, she promised to abolish quangos. By 1992, she had increased their budget from £13.9 billion to £42 billion—a sum equivalent to a fifth of the entire national expenditure and more than the total sum that we spend on local government. There was no consistency of policy on appointments.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No. The hon. Gentleman should listen because he is not facing reality, and I have to bring him back to reality.
  When the Tories ran out of business men they moved on to politicians and those who had been defeated at the polls. In 1991, the Welsh Secretary was responsible for appointments to 81 public bodies, with the Welsh Office having powers directly to appoint 1,261 people to them.
  The Welsh Secretary appointed Ian Grist, a former Tory Minister, to head the South Glamorgan health authority. He was defeated by his constituents but given a job by the Tories. The secretary to Gwilym Jones, another Welsh Office Minister, was also appointed to the South Glamorgan health authority. Jeff Sainsbury, a former Tory
  790
  councillor, was put in charge of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Phil Pedley, a defeated Tory candidate, was put in charge of the Board of Housing for Wales, succeeding another failed Tory candidate.
  When the Tories ran out of failed politicians, they turned to the Conservative party's national union executive. Of its 200 members, we have identified at least 37 who landed jobs in the public sector, including the party treasurer Charles Hambro, Sir Basil Feldman, Sir Philip Harris, Sir Robert Balchin and Beata Brookes.
  Mr. Letwin: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has given way, and I am most grateful to him. I wonder whether, in the light of that marvellous tirade, he could answer a simple question. Will he guarantee that the Government will apply Nolan rules to the appointment of members of task forces?
  Mr. McCartney: The Government are not only applying Nolan rules but extending accountability across the appointments system. The Government have applied the accountability rules to all appointments to quangos, which meant 6,000 more appointments. This is the first Government to have tenants on task forces talking about their housing conditions. The Tories put construction director bosses on to quangos and we are putting on to them members of residents' and tenants' associations.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  When the Tories ran out of members for the national union executive, they called in the Tory praetorian guard, their wives. That was the next group to be given public appointments. There was Lady Elspeth Howe, the then Deputy Prime Minister's wife, Anne, and Lady Brittan, wife of Sir Leon Brittan. As for Mary Archer, I wonder whether she had an opportunity to persuade us that she had more abilities than her husband. There was Lady Ann Parkinson, wife of Lord Parkinson. In addition, there was Lady June Onslow, wife of Sir Cranslow Onslow.
  Mr. Luff: Get it right.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman may have a go at my accent but I have more integrity in my little finger than there is in the whole of the Tory party. It does not matter if the gentleman is called Cranslow Onslow or Cranley Onslow. The fact is that the Tories gave his wife a job without consulting the public. There was then Arabella Lennox-Boyd, wife of a former Foreign Office Minister, Mark Lennox-Boyd.
  When the Tories had fixed jobs for their friends and their families they started fixing things for themselves. It was the greatest folly of the previous Conservative Government. There was Tim Smith, who was forced to stand down as the Member for Beaconsfield because he involved himself in cash-for-questions. Neil Hamilton was defeated in Tatton—I thought that that would silence Conservative Members—after resigning as a Minister because of his involvement in cash for questions. Graham Riddick was defeated in Colne Valley. He also accepted cash for questions.Thehon.Member for Bosworth

  791
  (Mr. Tredinnick) was criticised for agreeing to accept £1,000 in return for tabling questions. Jonathan Aitken was defeated in South Thanet after being forced to resign as a Minister following revelations that he had stayed at the Ritz, courtesy of middle east arms dealers.
  Sir Andrew Bowden was another Member linked to Greer. He was used to lobby and to recruit other Tory Members to lobby for him. Angela Rumbold, the former Deputy Chairman of the Tory party, was defeated in Mitcham and Maiden. She arranged meetings with Ministers for lobbying companies. William Waldegrave was criticised for being involved in misleading the House. Sir Nicholas Lyell was criticised in the arms to Iraq affair. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must distinguish carefully between ex-Members and current Members.
  Mr. McCartney: I am clearly differentiating between right hon. and hon. Members and I am naming hon. Members who are here and referring to those who were defeated in the general election and their former constituencies. It is important that, in a debate about standards, probity, integrity and open access to government, we set the record straight. I have no intention of allowing Conservatives to get away with their gross incompetence and sleaze during the period of the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Brady: I am sure that the Minister was about to move to the list of 260 Labour councillors who have been appointed to health trusts—[Interruption.] In the light of that, will he give an assurance to the House that if and when the commissioner for public appointments reports that in that scandalous process there has been political bias, those people will be dismissed and that new appointments will be undertaken without political bias?
  Mr. McCartney: I am proud that we took the opportunity in government to change the way in which the Tories ran national health service trusts. For the first time, we are giving opportunities to women to be appointed. We are giving opportunities to members of ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and people from the local community, whether they work in the business community, in industry or in the local authority.
  The previous Government scarred the capacity of local health trusts to represent the community. In my community, for example, they appointed people who did not even live in that community. Those people were appointed simply because they were members of the Conservative party.
  Sir Leonard Peach, the previous Commissioner for Public Appointments, stated in 1998 about appointments to NHS trust boards that
  "there was no evidence of Ministers intervening to ensure advancement of their nominees or colleagues"
  and that
  "patronage on behalf of individuals is clearly not an issue."
  792
  That was the position, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) does not like the fact that NHS trusts are no longer the bastion of Tory party members appointed—
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has indicated that he is not giving way at present. It would be helpful if he could indicate whether he intends to give way or not.
  Mr. McCartney: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am 5 ft 1 in tall, it is sometimes difficult to know whether I am standing or sitting. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman and replied to him. He just does not like the reply.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is present, was criticised for using the right-to-buy provisions offered by Westminster council to fund the purchase of valuable council-owned property by a friend. That is the level of members of the Tory party, who used the right to buy to advance themselves.
  That is the reality of Tory sleaze. No wonder that under the Tories, public confidence in the political process plumbed new depths. Under the Tories, sleaze entered the political dictionary. They left a tainted legacy.
  Labour's 1997 manifesto promised to clean up politics in order to rebuild the bond of trust between the British people and government. The Conservatives seem to be opposed to the very idea of accountability in the democratic process. They support hereditary peers, unaccountable quangos and secret government.
  We know from the debate this evening—I hope our colleagues in Scotland and Wales realise this—of the Tories' continued opposition to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. They have tried to thwart the Government's determination to improve democracy by devolving government to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. They have opposed the removal of the rights of hereditary peers, and in the past they resisted universal suffrage and votes for women. There is nothing new in the Tories' opposition to the extension of democracy.
  There is a further damning indictment of the Tories. Under their Government, we paid more and got less. They spent billions on the NHS internal market, while there were fewer doctors and nurses, and they privatised the dental service. They introduced the poll tax, which failed and cost the British taxpayer £14 billion. The Tories were the Government of BSE, which cost the British farming community billions of pounds in lost jobs and lost trade.
  On Black Wednesday the Tory Government lost £10 billion of British reserves, and they doubled the national debt to £30 billion a year. It took a Labour Government to eliminate that national debt.
  What about Steven Norris, the Tory candidate for London mayor? As Minister for Transport in London, in two years he ripped off the British taxpayer with overrun costs of £1.4 billion for the Jubilee line extension, yet he

  793
  wants to be mayor of London. It was a case not of "catch a tube", but of "get on your bike".
  The Tories cannot even add up. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said that central bureaucracy costs £1.1 billion, but he adjusted that the following day. No wonder he cannot get his figures right. His financial adviser is Michael Ashcroft, a resident of Belize and the man who bought the Tory party lock, stock and barrel.
  There is no disguising the fact that the Government have introduced greater accountability. More real people serve on quangos, instead of Tory place men and women. People are appointed on merit, not as favours. We have ended the secrecy about appointments. We have stopped ministerial patronage. We have slammed the door on the political scandals of the last two years of Tory rule. The Tories have learned nothing. I urge the House to reject their motion and support the Government.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 331.

  Division No. 31]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Allan, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Feam, Ronnie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flight, Howard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bercow, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Brady, Graham

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Green, Damian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Burnett, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butterfill, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hancock, Mike

  Harvey, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Hattemprice)

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Kirkwood, Archy

  794

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

  Lidington, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Livsey, Richard

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Steen, Anthony

  Loughton, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Swayne, Desmond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, William

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Townend, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tredinnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Trend, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Walter, Robert

  Oaten, Mark

  Wardle, Charles

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Prior, David

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willis, Phil

  Rendel, David

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. John Randall and

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Best, Harold

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blackman, Liz

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Austin, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Banks, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beard, Nigel

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cann, Jamie

  Benton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Casale, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  795

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hain, Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clelland. David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hurst Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

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

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Drew, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Etherington, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Galloway, George

  Uddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Steve

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  796

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Spellar, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

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

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stringer, Graham

  Mudie, George

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  PlasWtt, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pound, Stephen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  White, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rapson, Syd

  Wills, Michael

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Winnick, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wise, Audrey

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wray, James

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

  797
  The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 162.

  Division No. 32]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Crausby, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darvill, Keith

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Austin, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Denham, John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Doran, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Drew, David

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Etherington, Bill

  Borrow, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Follett, Barbara

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coleman, Iain

  Healey, John

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  798

  Hill, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Hope, Phil

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hutton, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolvem'ton SW)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Laxton, Bob

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Salter, Martin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerheld)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  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

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stringer, Graham

  799

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Watts, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wills, Michael

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don

  Wise, Audrey

  Trickett, Jon

  Wood, Mike

  Truswell, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wray, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wyatt, Derek

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Allan, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gibb, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gray, James

  Ballard, Jackie

  Green, Damian

  Bercow, John

  Greenway, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Dominic

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Boswell, Tim

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hancock, Mike

  Brady, Graham

  Harvey, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burnett, John

  Horam, John

  Butterfill, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamef)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cotter, Brian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cran, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Letwin, Oliver

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Livsey, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Flight, Howard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Loughton, Tim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Luff, Peter

  800

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Stunell, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, William

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Townend, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Norman, Archie

  Trend, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles

  Paterson, Owen

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Webb, Steve

  Prior, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Rendel, David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Laurence

  Willetts, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Willis, Phil

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wilshire, David

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Yeo, Tim

  Sanders, Adrian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

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

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that, compared to the previous administration, the costs of central Government have not risen in real terms, and have indeed fallen; supports the progress made by this Government in cleaning up politics and rebuilding the bond of trust with the British people, broken through the failures of the previous administration; welcomes the Government's actions to improve democratic accountability; endorses the inclusive approach to policymaking of the Modernising Government agenda, which involves more people from all walks of life; welcomes the improvement in standards in public life; and agrees with the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that 'special advisers have a valuable role to play.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on the Line of Route may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 11.30 p.m.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  Line of Route
  10.30 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I beg to move,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Revised Framework for Re-opening the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment (HC98).
  I have to admit to a distinct feeling of déjà vu as I move a motion to approve an Administration Committee report on the Line of Route. On 26 May last year, the House was unable to approve the Committee's original proposals, and we were asked to come forward with an alternative framework.
  I am grateful for the determination shown by my colleagues on the Committee, by the former Serjeant at Arms and the director of finance and administration and their staff, and by the consultants. That has enabled us to advance our new proposals—assuming that this House and the other place agree to them—in time for a re-opening this year.
  As the House may have heard, Mr. Walker, the director of finance, has been ill and recently underwent a major operation. May I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to express to him the Committee's best wishes for a speedy and a complete recovery? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank the Leader of the House for making time available for this debate.
  I have to advise the House that there is a printing error in the report that could cause confusion. In paragraph 27, the correct financial year is 2000–01.
  In drafting our new proposals, the Committee took on board comments made during the debate last year, especially those made by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We have listened to the concerns that have been raised, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that we have acted accordingly in response to the wish expressed by the House.
  Bearing in mind that any tour of the Palace has to be of a suitable and dignified nature, the Committee has produced proposals that we consider are as limited—and involve as small an investment—as possible. I shall be brief, as time is short and I do not wish to deprive Members of an opportunity to speak. I wish to highlight a few points, particularly those about which the House expressed most concern last year.
  As we say in the report, in the previous debate,
  "no objections were raised to the principle of a re-opening"
  provided that it was done on an experimental basis. The House objected to introducing an admission charge to visit the Palace. We do not now propose such a charge. Visitors will still have to pay—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Oh!
  Mrs. Roe: I accept that some right hon. and hon. Members may say that I am being pedantic, but there is a crucial difference. Visitors will be paying not to visit the Houses of Parliament, but for the services of a guide.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: One of the things that troubles a number of hon. Members
  802
  is that it is hard to see why members of the public should have to make a prior arrangement to come here at a particular time. It is difficult to see why, as with cathedrals and many other public places, they should not simply come to this place as and when they choose during the recess. Why on earth should they have a guide? I, for one, much prefer to go around public places by myself.
  Mrs. Roe: Members of the public can come to the House of Commons through their Member of Parliament, as now. They do not need to have a guide. In fact, their Member of Parliament can obtain tickets for them and they can come through the House in the usual way without a guide. Obviously, Members of Parliament can show people round the House themselves, or get a member of staff or spouse to do it for them. However, it was assumed by the Committee that most people who visited during the summer recess would be tourists, and we expected that they would prefer to have a guide. That is why that facility will be available. After we had considered the approach taken by other historic places of interest in London— Buckingham palace, for example—we felt that the proposals were the best way to cope with the numbers that we anticipated would wish to see the Palace. If we have timed and booked visits, there will be no confusion and no difficulty for hon. Members.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I echo my hon. Friend's comments about the Committee, which struggled with the issues that the House gave us to consider. [Interruption.] Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would do me the courtesy of listening to my remarks. With the present arrangements, we have a Line of Route because it is right to have some management and supervision—for safety and security reasons—of visitors to the Palace of Westminster. The necessity for some supervision, security and safety means that people should not be allowed to wander unaided around this important building.
  Mrs. Roe: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, which I endorse. The Palace is not a museum with treasures in glass cases or areas cordoned off. It is a workplace, and it is therefore important that groups of visitors are properly supervised. The security arrangements are also important.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Lady make it clear that during August and September it will still be possible for a Member of Parliament or a member of staff to take round a small group without making any payment?
  Mrs. Roe: I confirm that that will be the case, as it is now. In August, that facility is available on Wednesday and Thursday mornings and in September, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings. On those mornings, Members of Parliament will not be inhibited in any way from taking constituents, friends or whoever they like around the House, because nothing has changed. The new proposals are for an additional facility and I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will feel that we have listened to what they said when we put the issue to the House before.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In the 1960s, there was a free Line of Route. I realise that interest in

  803
  Parliament has increased since then, but the proposals will not break entirely new ground and I wonder what arrangements were made in those days. I remember taking the Line of Route from the Victoria tower when the House was not sitting and that the guide was free, although I might have tagged on to another party that had paid.
  What comparisons have been made with other Parliaments, such as the French National Assembly, the Bundestag and the Congress of the United States of America? Visits to the White House—I know it is not a legislature—are free—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue on those lines.
  Mrs. Roe: I am afraid that I did not visit the House in the 1960s but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it was the murder of Airey Neave and the consequent security issues that caused the Line of Route visits to be stopped. I do not know the exact arrangements that were made, but I will let him know. I imagine that Members of Parliament could do then what they can do now and that that would have been free. I will come to the arrangements made in other countries later, but in general they are all different. I said that there would be no admission charge, and that is the situation at present. Many people already pay a modest charge—to the doorkeepers, to blue badge guides or to the education unit—to take part in tours along the Line of Route.
  I cannot stress too strongly that nothing in our proposals will affect the arrangements that apply during the summer or when the House is sitting. Summer reopening will be an additional facility. It is designed to appeal mainly to those who might be termed casual visitors: tourists who come to London. The proposed arrangements will not affect hon. Members' existing rights of access or the autumn visits programme.
  Some hon. Members were concerned, rightly, that a summer opening could affect the annual parliamentary works programme. I hope that the House will be reassured that the Committee was advised—by the director of parliamentary works—that the works plan for summer 2000 can be carried out without significant obstruction to the line of route.
  The House will be interested to note that the planned works include repairs to the rail around the Throne in the other place, laser cleaning of the stonework in the passage between the Central Lobby and the Members' Lobby, and the replacement of some acoustic tiles. My personal view is that these works may enhance a visit, rather than detract from it. Visitors will be able to see some of the essential repair work that has to be carried out from time to time in the Palace. In any case, many people enjoy watching others at work. That is why there are often spy holes in the hoardings around building sites.
  The nuts and bolts of the proposed operation are set out in detail in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the report. I shall not detain the House by rehearsing them at length now. However, to make a visit to Parliament as enjoyable and efficient as possible, it will be necessary for visitors to book timed tickets and a guide in advance of their visit. The operational day will be divided into a series of admissions slots, with a limit on the numbers admitted in
  804
  each slot. The proposal is that five groups, each of 20 visitors plus a guide, would be admitted at 15-minute intervals.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the guide charge be higher or lower than the charge currently paid by groups who use the service, or will it be about the same?
  Mrs. Roe: Charges vary and, because they are private arrangements between hon. Members and others, they are no concern of mine. I have heard that the charge will be slightly higher, but there is nothing to prevent hon. Members from making arrangements with the people with whom they have arrangements at present, on behalf of their constituents and others. Those arrangements will not be changed in any way. The guide service will be an additional facility.
  The arrangements that we propose differ from those in operation in any other Parliament in the world. However, our inquiries show that no two Parliaments operate exactly the same system. Arrangements vary greatly, from strictly required pre-bookings to a policy that amounts to little more than "turn up at any time".
  Most Parliaments seem to have guided tours, rather than the auto-guides originally proposed by the Committee, and even then there are differences. In Canada, for example, tours are paid for by the taxpayer, and the guides are members of staff of the Canadian Parliament. In Austria, the tour guides are employees of an outside agency, and visitors pay their admission charge of approximately £2 at a reception desk inside the entrance to the Parliament building.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Association of Professional Tourist Guides in Britain, which is affiliated to the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, has strongly welcomed the proposal? It gives the first opportunity for professional guides, trained outside Parliament, to show their skills within Parliament.
  Mrs. Roe: I am sure that hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that additional information.
  Due to the simpler arrangements being proposed, we are looking at an operation that, although cheaper, still is not cheap. Paragraph 29 of the report states that we could be looking at a bottom-line figure of some £138,000— an amount that has not been allowed for in the 2000–01 estimates. However, should the House of Commons and the House of Lords approve the report, I can confirm that it will not be necessary for a supplementary estimate to be put before the House because it will be able to draw upon its central reserve, which is designed to cover matters such as this.
  One important way in which the House could recoup some of its outlay is by the sale of gifts and souvenirs. Merchandising is discussed in paragraphs 21 to 25 of the report. The House will have noted that we had misgivings about the consultants' proposal for letting the contract for merchandising. We consider that before any final decision is taken, the views of the experts must be sought. I refer of course to the two refreshment departments, the Catering

  805
  Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), and the Lords refreshment sub-committee.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us—perhaps only a minority— believe that a widening of the merchandising franchise to enable more and more people to purchase goods from the House of Commons and the House of Lords devalues such items? They are not quite the rarities that they used to be, and are not so well received, because far more people get them than when Members of Parliament were the main purchasers.
  Mrs. Roe: My hon. Friend must know that this matter is in the hands of the Catering Committee, not the Administration Committee. However, we believed it important to consult those who serve on those Committees in both the Lords and the Commons to obtain their views on how best to proceed with merchandising. I am sure that his point will be brought to the attention of the relevant Committee chairman.
  We must ensure that we obtain the best possible deal for our constituents—the United Kingdom taxpayers. That will be best achieved by the two refreshment departments providing the gifts and souvenirs, rather than an outside company, particularly as the reopening this summer will be purely experimental.
  The Committee thought it only right to sound a note of caution about the new proposals. That is set out in paragraph 15. Perhaps our greatest concern was that as there will not be a set charge, as previously proposed, unscrupulous tour operators may see the Line of Route tours as an opportunity to rip off the visitor and charge considerably in excess of the forecast charge per visitor of £2.50 each for participants in an English-language group or £2.86 each in a foreign-language group. No doubt the House authorities will keep a close eye on that, perhaps using spot checks to ascertain how much individuals are being charged. We felt that we should bring that matter to the House's attention. I must stress that our proposals are experimental and can be reviewed at the end of the experiment.
  I hope that the House will accept the report. Some hon. Members prefer last year's report and feel that our original proposals were the best way in which to proceed.
  Mr. Forth: No.
  Mrs. Roe: I assure my right hon. Friend that some Members feel that way. I accept that others may feel uneasy about handing over the guiding of tours of Parliament to an outside agency, but I urge them to give our proposals a chance. Summer reopening would be a trial, and I acknowledge that there are ifs and buts around our proposals. If any mistake is made, or if visitors are being exploited by tour operators, we shall reconsider matters and put them right before the House is asked to make summer reopening an annual event. The House will make the final decision. The matter will come before us again when the experiment is over. In the hope that it will be supported, I commend the report to the House.
  10.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Opening the House of Commons and the House of Lords this summer would be an experiment. This is a House matter, and the Government have no view. No party Whip is being applied. There are many differences of view across the political parties, and we have heard some of them already. When the matter was debated on 26 May last year, there were serious differences of opinion. Since then, the Select Committee on Administration has reflected further and produced new proposals. A great deal of effort has been made over a fairly long time, and I am grateful for the Committee's work.
  It is absolutely right that there should be greater public access to an important and historic building that is a symbol across the world. I still get a thrill when I walk through Westminster Hall, soaking up the atmosphere. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) outlined how the new proposals differ from the previous proposals, but the rights of Members of both Houses must be protected, and the parliamentary works programme must go forward as planned.
  The proposal is experimental, suggesting a trial only during summer 2000. The Committee was clear on that point. Paragraph 32 of the report states that:
  "a reopening, Summer 2000 should be seen as a trial, and will be subject to review later that year."
  Lessons will be learned from the experiment, and the House will wish to consider whether summer opening can become permanent or whether there might be possibilities of extending public access at other times of the year.
  I strongly support the Committee's report, but will highlight a few proposals. First, if the motion is agreed, the relevant Committees in the other place will consider the matter, and the other place will be asked to agree to a parallel motion. Secondly, as with the previous scheme, some input will be required from the public purse, mainly for security costs. The financial contribution will depend on take-up. That is a matter that the Committee has discussed and considered in detail. There could be an annual operating deficit of £232,000—of which the Commons' share would be £138,000. The House needs to bear that in mind when considering the matter.
  As has been pointed out, merchandising must be considered. The sale of souvenirs will help to defray the costs. However, we must ensure that those souvenirs are appropriate and that they reflect suitably on the character of the House and of Parliament. The Committee recommended further discussion of that point.
  Whatever the souvenirs that people take away, they will also take away important insights into the work of Parliament, and vivid memories and recollections of the building. Without doubt, this place affects and infects people. I shall support the trial opening. I hope that, in due course, it can be further extended.
  10.56 pm
  Sir George Young: I welcome the work of the Administration Committee and the introductory remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I am conscious that, on the previous two occasions when the Committee submitted recommendations to the House—on vellum and on the Line of Route—the House rejected them. I hope that it will be third time lucky.

  807
  I was happy with the original proposals, for which I voted on 26 May. Those included a charging structure, which meant that both Houses would recover their costs over five years, based on an average payment per visitor of £5.17, including VAT. That would have enabled the House to meet the other claims on its budget over a five-year period, without having to make provision for reopening the Line of Route.
  The new report, which reflects the views of the House in that earlier vote and has overcome the fears of some critics, does not put the proposal in a five-year time frame. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, she recommends a trial this summer, followed by a review. I understand the reasons for that, but appendix B of the report shows an annual operating deficit of between £200 and £230,000, because the average charge per visitor has fallen to between £2.50 and £2.80, leaving a subsidy per visitor of £2.80.
  On top of that, there are start-up costs—£400,000 in the earlier report. Although the second report knocks out some of those costs, I cannot find in it an estimate of the revised start-up costs. That will be of interest to the House of Commons Commission. There will be budgetary implications. At a time when we are urging financial discipline on other public bodies, we should exercise it ourselves.
  The principle that visitors should pay, which I support, has been retained, although it is presented not as an admission fee, but as an apportioned share of the costs of a guide. I prefer the original proposals, but I am happy to support the ones before us.
  I wish to raise a few points. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne tell us where the new visitors' office—referred to in paragraph 13—will be?
  In the original proposals, the House was, in effect, a retailer; we controlled the purchase price and dealt with the visitors. We are now moving into wholesale mode— somebody else will retail the package. The result could be that visitors would pay the fees to which the House objected last May, but the House would not receive the proceeds. The House could find that the retailer has creamed off the difference. My hon. Friend touched on that point. One needs to keep an eye out to ensure that there is no abuse. I hope that, if we discover abuses and that someone else is creaming off the surplus that should go to the House, we shall reconsider the matter with a view to recouping such surpluses.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not it fair to ask the guides to police the system for us?
  Sir George Young: I am not sure that even the guides will know how much visitors are paying to tour organisers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They can ask.
  Sir George Young: Indeed. However, my response to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, it would not be fair to the ask the guides, in addition to their other responsibilities, to police the system.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is there not a risk that, by contracting out this new guide system, which will be based in a booking office in the garden of the Victoria
  808
  Tower—at the other end of the Palace—we might drive up the cost of tours with the current guides of the House, for which Members of Parliament pay? My right hon. Friend appears to believe entirely in market forces in respect of current services and provisions in the Palace of Westminster. Am I right?
  Sir George Young: In a word—no. I see no reason why the contractual arrangements between Members and guides should be affected. I see them carrying on in the same way.
  My final question to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is whether Members need to pre-empt all tours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings in September. I leave that question in her mind, but is the demand from Members such that other groups cannot be allowed to visit at those times? Perhaps the matter will be kept under review.
  Subject to the answers to those questions, I shall—this is free-vote territory—support the proposals in the Lobby.
  11 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: In the previous debate on this subject I might have played a major part in defeating the proposal that was before us then. However, it is not my intention to vote against the motion tonight. The Committee has addressed the points that were made in the previous debate and tried to come up with a proposal that deals with some of the issues raised.
  I cannot pretend that the proposal is a perfectly satisfactory conclusion, but it is an improvement. We underestimate the symbolism of Parliament not only in this country, but in the whole world. In the second world war, people from throughout the Commonwealth and from nations that lost their freedom looked upon Parliament as a symbol. People should have access to the building so that they can understand the Westminster parliamentary heritage.
  I still to some extent hold the view that free access should be available to people from all over the world. However, I accept the point of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) that the proposal will produce additional access and will not replace any existing arrangements. It will give us an additional 41 days when members of the public will be able to gain access to the building. In that sense the proposal is an improvement, and a commitment has been made to consider how it has worked later in the year.
  Although, in theory, I would like people to be able to turn up and visit the Line of Route, I understand why there must be regulation. Those who accompany the groups from our constituencies know the pressure points in the Prince's Chamber and elsewhere. People wait to see the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor's Chair and the Throne in the other place and they sometimes have to queue. We also face difficulties in this Chamber when everyone wants to see where Black Rod bangs the door. There must be a sensible flow of people through those pressure points, so I understand the need for controls.
  I hope that we shall make forms available, so that people can tell us how they think the system has worked. That would be useful. We could ask people to tell us anonymously how much they had paid for their tour. That would provide us with a check on what they pay the tour

  809
  organisers. If the hon. Lady has not already thought of that point, she might consider doing something along those lines.
  I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said about retailing and merchandising quality souvenirs. We do not want people to buy the tat that they can buy at a cheap market anywhere in the country. We want them to be able to buy good quality stuff that befits the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament. That is extremely important.
  I dismiss, however, the point about security and the £230,000 deficit. I accept that there will be a cost to the public purse, but when we consider what it costs to run this building and Parliament as a whole, £230,000, or any capital cost of setting up the scheme, is chicken-feed. We must enable the people of this country, particularly young people, to see their Parliament, where legislation is made.
  We must be a symbol to people from the Commonwealth and other nations, some of which fought, lost their independence or were occupied for a period. In this new millennium we want to send out the message that this place is important, and that it stands for something and will continue to do so. We ought to enable as many people as possible to see this place, so I shall be supporting the motion.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I had the pleasure of not only moving the amendment on 26 May but, unusually in this Parliament, of winning a vote. The vote was against the Front Benches, because although they voted in a personal capacity, the Leader of the House and her Conservative shadow voted for the proposals, and it was Back Benchers who voted against them. I was pleased to be able to defeat the establishment.
  The vote was not only on the practicalities of the proposals; there was a principle involved. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has just said, a number of Members felt strongly that the way in which we were being asked to proceed would commit us to a course of action not for one year but, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) pointed out, for five years.
  That programme had all the hallmarks of something that would expand because the up-front investment would be so great that it would not be viable or economically sound if it were not extended into other parts of the year, into weekends and even possibly weekdays. The fear that Members would not be able to let our constituents come to see our Parliament at work in the long term was behind that vote.
  I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and her Committee but to the Department of the Serjeant at Arms. They have worked hard to try to take on board all the concerns expressed by Members in the former debate. I particularly draw hon. Members' attention to paragraphs 13 to 16 of the report— if they have not read them already—which set out in succinct detail the variants on the previous report. Those paragraphs contain improvements and, importantly, set out the three features that are not now part of the proposals.
  810
  First, the scheme does not involve an admission charge per se. Secondly, there will be no booth—no ticketing regime with an elaborate new building in the Victoria Tower Gardens. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) can rest assured that there will not be an excrescence on the parliamentary building at that end of the Palace.
  Thirdly, and most importantly, there will still be personal guides. We shall not have those terrible audio machines that go wrong and are not adaptable. Most other attractions in London have now discarded them as not being up to the standard required for a location such as this.
  Hon. Members felt that the proposals made in May were the thin end of a very big wedge, and that is why they turned them down by a large majority. On that basis, these proposals are a great improvement on the originals. However, there are concerns, and it would be wrong to let the moment pass without putting them on record. I hope that these considerations will be carefully monitored during the year.
  First, the numbers have been dragged out of a hat. I know that the Committee has had expert advice, but the proposed numbers are considerable, and it will be difficult to get them through the House in a comparatively short working day. Secondly, those who already take parties around are concerned about provision for smaller groups, which could be uneconomic under the proposals unless they are amalgamated with bigger groups, but there might then be a problem with different languages.
  The costs are set out in some detail, but as hon. Members have already said, they are still rather tentative. That, perhaps, is an additional reason for having only a one-year programme.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the possibility that contracting out may lead to profiteering. I think that the hon. Member for Broxbourne is right when she says that we must try to monitor the scheme very carefully. The hon. Member for Burnley is right also when he says that feedback from those who are experiencing the new regime will be the best way of ascertaining whether they are getting good value for money and whether we are offering good value for money.
  Finally, and most importantly, there are the efforts that have been made to make the scheme a one-off special and to have a trial period during this particular year. I do not dare mention the M word in the proximity of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). However, as there is a special exhibition in this building during the year, I think that we will find that visitors will come through during the summer who will want to see it. They will want also to see the working parts of this working building. In the circumstances, I think that a trial period with no long-term commitment is the right way forward.
  On the whole, that is the way in which the House works. We experiment, evolve and improve, and we also review. I hope that in addition we shall get feedback from those most concerned. That seems the proper way forward, and I congratulate the Committee on greatly improved proposals.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I intended to go home, but an hon. Member persuaded me to stay and vote against the motion. However, I shall not oppose it. It is

  811
  interesting that I do not see the Member in question in the Chamber. I am persuaded that before us is a long overdue measure. As I have said in the House previously, as many others will have done, we came here as children or young people and were thrilled by the place. That memory remains very much with me. I went on a tour without any organisation. I joined up at the Victoria tower and was allowed through. The system worked but I accept that the volume of visitors was different and that there had not been the terrorist regime that has blighted the past 20-odd years.
  When I first visited this place, I remember the guide telling us how Ministers used to put their feet on the Table. Since the television cameras have come into the Chamber, Ministers no longer do that. However, the information intrigued me, and I was enthused by it. For the next 28 years I tried to get elected to this place. Having been elected, I rushed into the Chamber and sat down on one of the Front Benches. I put my feet up and found that they would not reach the Table. Somehow I had always felt that I would never be a Minister. I shall leave Front-Bench positions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
  The tourist industry in London is well organised, with companies bringing people in from other continents. What safeguards will there be to ensure that tickets are not booked up on an organised basis so that they are all swiftly taken? That would mean that ordinary folk— perhaps small families coming up from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other parts of the world—who express an interest will be told, "I'm awfully sorry, madam, but all the tickets have been taken for today." I am nervous about that. Entrepreneurs and business managers in the big London hotels or cruise line companies will ensure that all the tickets are taken. That will be the first thing to hit the Sunday newspapers after a few weeks, and we will all be embarrassed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is to be a review.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I do not think that we should wait for the review. We should anticipate problems, and I hope that the one to which I have referred will be considered now.
  I had not realised until this evening that merchandising is so important. My view is different from that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I agree with him, however, that there must be quality products on sale that are appropriate to the House, but they must not be bland. By contrast with the shop in the House of Lords, I regret to say that the products in the Commons shop are bland and expensive. I have drawn attention to that in an early-day motion. I regret the fact that the House of Lords shop is so superior to ours in its range of quality products, many of which are very attractive. Some heads need to be banged among members of our Catering Committee.
  I do not have confidence in the Catering Committee when it comes to dealing with this matter, and I hope that that will be taken on board. I am told that the running of the House of Lords shop is largely delegated to the folk who work in it, which is a good idea—better than managers on high salaries and hon. Members. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
  812
  It is long overdue that people should have access to this place. I know that it is a corny phrase, but it is the people's palace. I always say that to the people whom I bring to the House. In the seven years I have been a Member, I have never paid for a guide. Although there is a danger of my being the most highly paid tourist guide in London, I get an enormous thrill from acting out Speaker Lenthall's speech in St. Stephen's hall and from showing people the Crypt, which I know will not be part of the Line of Route. It is an important part of our job to ensure that everyone has access to this mother of Parliaments.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: We have got ourselves in a dreadful muddle, and I suspect I know why. We cannot leave this place alone. We cannot let things be. We cannot allow things to remain as they have been, when they are reasonably or perfectly satisfactory. Everyone must now keep changing things, fiddling with them and adjusting them. I suspect that that is the main reason why we are faced with such an unsatisfactory muddle.
  An example of that is the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) delivered with virtually a straight face. We were told not to worry—there will not be an admission fee, and people will just be charged for a guide. To the extent to which that was put as a serious argument, and in the expectation that those of us who opposed it last summer will now be for it, that is a distinction without a difference. It illustrates the difficulty into which the Committee has got itself.
  My hon. Friend says that the House is to blame—that her Committee came up with some good ideas last year, which the House was disgraceful enough to reject. The Committee has had to come back with less good ideas, which we are asked to accept this time round. I do not accept them this time round, because they are still unsatisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked in an intervention whether other similar bodies did what is being proposed. I believe I am correct in saying that my other favourite legislature, Congress in Washington DC, does not charge for admission and does not require people to have guides. I have gone on to Capitol Hill many times, gone through security and been able to guide myself round the building.
  That, I thought, was right and appropriate. If it is possible in Washington DC, I should have thought that we could manage something similar in this place, without all the paraphernalia laid out in the report.
  Dr. Palmer: Did the right hon. Gentleman happen to be present when one of the visitors attempted to assassinate a member of the House of Representatives with a machine gun, and instead wounded several of the staff?
  Mr. Forth: I was not there at the time, but whether the gentleman with the gun would have been deterred by a charge for a guide, I am not entirely certain. I do not see the validity of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me.

  813
  The other spurious argument that we are offered this evening is that this is only a trial. We have all heard that before. We were sold that pup when the televising of the House was proposed. That was supposed to be an experiment. We are being sold it again with the ridiculous and expensive alternative Chamber that has been wished upon us. We are told that that is an experiment. You know and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is nothing of the kind: it was declared a triumph some time in the summer and made permanent.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, gave the game away. I noted his words carefully. He said that he knew that the proposal was only a trial, but he hoped that it would be extended. If that is not prejudging and giving the game away, I do not know what is.
  Let us make no mistake about it: if we support the motion tonight, which I hope we will not, we will be in a mess; we will be kidding ourselves, our public and our voters, and the change will almost certainly be permanent in one form or another. The proposal is unfortunate, and I hope that the House will not feel obliged to support it tonight. It can be put on ice.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend has not asked one question. A range of figures has been discussed—in the previous report, £5-plus per person. Now that the proposal is for a guide ticket, no one has said what it will cost individuals who visit the Palace of Westminster. We heard a price of around £2.50 mentioned—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.
  Mr. Forth: I do not know the answer to the question. It is significant that no one else, except perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, knows.
  Mr. Heald: The appendix to the report explains that the cost would be between £2.50 and £3 per visitor.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not know how he is able to say that, because if there is no mechanism for control or regulation, the charge could be any amount of money.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I always believed that the right hon. Gentleman opposed regulation.
  Mr. Forth: I oppose regulation and am an unrepentant advocate of the free market, but I was trying to answer my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) by pointing out that we cannot know the figure because it would be unregulated and would thus find its own level. We are operating in the dark.
  For all the reasons that I outlined, I remain completely unconvinced. If we have the opportunity for a Division, I shall vote against the report.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: We are discussing the mother of Parliaments. We have talked about not knowing whether the cost of visiting this place will be £2.50 or £3. We have considered additional merchandising and said that it should not be tat, as if that were important. However, if we wish to promote representative democracy, we want as many people as possible to visit us here—whether we are working or not—on six or even seven days a week. I oppose charging.
  During the summer, educational facilities are made available. Many youngsters visit the House, and several hon. Members give up their time to talk to school pupils and explain what we do. We do that to promote representative democracy, which we demean by talking about charging £2.50 or £3 for small groups of people, many of them tourists on package tours. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was able to visit Parliament when he was a youngster, and get in without being part of a guided tour. He was so excited by what he saw that he ended up on the Government Benches, albeit below the Gangway.
  We should do all that we can to excite people of all ages about our work here. If we turn Parliament into a theme park, with a little tuck shop where we sell souvenirs—any old tat with a portcullis for which we can charge twice as much as it is worth—we do Parliament and democracy a disservice.
  I shall not vote in favour of or against the proposals. I emphasise that we ought to consider what we do to encourage people to vote. Tomorrow, we shall again consider the Representation of the People Bill. Voting statistics show that people are turned off by representative democracy.
  Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: No. After what people have heard this evening, I suspect that even fewer will vote in future.
  11.24 pm
  Mrs. Roe: With the leave of the House, I shall wind up the debate. Many hon. Members have made points and it is courteous to try to respond.
  The debate has been interesting and I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to it. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his support and I agree that all the souvenirs that are sold here should reflect the dignity of the House and be of high quality.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for his support. He raised several questions. I agree that we should monitor carefully any possible abuse of charging by the operator. I made that point and we put it in the report, quite legitimately, to bring it to the attention of the House and so that everybody will know that we shall keep a careful eye on it.
  On Members' use of the Line of Route in August and September, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire suggested that every day might not be needed. I have given my word that there will be no change in the current arrangements and my right hon. Friend will understand that this is not a matter that the Administration Committee should consider at this time. Members will have the same opportunity to bring their constituents to the House as they do now.

  815
  I thank the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for his support and also for his suggestion about the survey that might take place among visitors. I am sure that the organisers will note that extremely helpful suggestion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady make it clear to those who operate the system that we will reverse it if they abuse it?
  Mrs. Roe: That, of course, is the ultimate sanction and I am certain that the organisers will understand that that is exactly what will happen if they do not toe the line and behave honourably.
  I am most grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his support and also for his advice and assistance during our deliberations while we were suggesting the new framework and when the whole matter was being reconsidered. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will not vote against the motion and I reiterate that we shall monitor take-up of the tickets. On merchandising, I have already explained that I believe that high quality is very important. The Administration Committee is of course not responsible for that end of the House of Commons' selling programme, which comes under the Catering Committee, and I am sure that the Chairman of that Committee will note the points that he has made.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) argued for visits to the Palace to be totally free, but visits are not free at the moment unless visitors are personally escorted by an hon. Member or by a member of staff. As I said in my opening speech, under the present arrangements many people already pay a modest charge to come through—
  Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: No, because I have only three minutes in which to speak.
  Mr. Pike: On a quick point?
  Mrs. Roe: I shall give way briefly.
  Mr. Pike: In answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), will not the overwhelming majority of people—whether they visit the Palace in the recess or at another time or go into the Gallery—come into the building absolutely free?
  Mrs. Roe: That is absolutely right, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has taken that point on board.
  I find the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst confusing, because I feel that he was suggesting that the guests of hon. Members might pay to come into the House and the general public might not. Surely that cannot be right. Perhaps I misunderstood and he was advocating scrapping the present arrangements so that guests cannot take part in any tour if an hon. Member cannot personally escort them. I find it difficult to understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from.
  816
  I reiterate that we propose an additional facility. None of the present arrangements for access will be changed and, as I said in the debate last year, no one will have to pay to see the House or its Committees at work or to meet their or any other Member of Parliament. The arrangements are exactly the same as they always have been.
  I hope that the House will not divide, but if it does, hon. Members should be fully aware of the possible implications. The proposal will give many more people—possibly as many as 80 per cent. of whom will be overseas visitors—the opportunity to see the home of Parliament and its treasures. For some, and possibly most, of those visitors, a tour of the Palace of Westminster will be the opportunity of a lifetime. Should the House vote against the motion, there would be no alternative: no amendments were tabled and therefore there would be no advice or instructions for the Committee to follow up. The choice, I regret to say, is not between paying for a guide or providing one free, but between reopening the Line of Route this summer or having to forget the whole proposal.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 4.

  Division No. 33]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Allen, Graham

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Lepper, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Betts, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Merron, Gillian

  Browne, Desmond

  Miller, Andrew

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Caplin, Ivor

  Olner, Bill

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Pike, Peter L

  Crausby, David

  Pope, Greg

  Darvill, Keith

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Dawson, Hilton

  Rendel, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Dowd, Jim

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Sawford, Phil

  Flynn, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Foulkes, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stringer, Graham

  Gerrard, Neil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hanson, David

  Touhig, Don

  Heald, Oliver

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Heppell, John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Watts, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wray, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jenkins, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Key, Robert

  Mr. William Ross and

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dr. Nick Palmer.

  817

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins Jim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Christopher Chope.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on the Revised Framework for Re-opening the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment (HC98).

  COMMITTEES

    Environmental Audit
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Laurence Robertson be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Sir Richard Body be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth]

    Public Administration
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Nicholas Soames be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. John Townend be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth]

  Nancekuke Base
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  11.40 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: This debate concerns both my current constituents and, sadly, some who are no longer with us. The issues that I plan to raise involve the use of land by the Ministry of Defence on the north coast of my constituency, at the base formally called Nancekuke, near Portreath. I shall be asking for a totally new inquiry into operations at Nancekuke and the possible effects on my constituents.
  Nancekuke was a chemical defence establishment— although that rather bland title hid its real role. Nancekuke was used to produce and test nerve gas after the second world war, and some of its equipment was salvaged from Nazi Germany.
  The production of nerve gas was given real impetus by the arms race, and the fear that the eastern bloc was moving ahead in the sphere of chemical warfare. As the Government stated in a declaration to the United Nations, Nancekuke was the United Kingdom's main chemical weapons research and development facility. Chemical weapons produced at Nancekuke were, it is believed, used offensively by the United States until 1964. More than 20 tonnes of the nerve agent GB sarin were produced at Nancekuke—which was a rather large amount, one might think, for research purposes alone.
  Nancekuke closed in 1980, after the 1976 defence review, and the buildings and equipment were buried on the site. That is but one of the issues that I wish to pursue in the debate.
  Nancekuke consists of eight scattered farms and old quarries and is at the heart of Cornwall's mining history. Many mines were never mapped. Mining is not referred to within the said disclosure to the United Nations. Originally, during the second world war, the site was used as an airfield, but, in the 1950s, people realised that it was being used as an Army research centre.
  The base first reached prominence when a local Redruth man, Trevor Martin, claimed that he was suffering from nerve gas poisoning after working as a fitter at the factory. Subsequently, it was discovered that the Ministry of Defence was dispatching nerve gas along the A30, to Porton Down, causing great local alarm.
  In the 1960s and 1970s, local Members of Parliament started asking questions, and one particular story rose to prominence. It concerned Tom Griffiths, who is delighted that his personal quest for the truth may—I very much hope that it will—be successful today.
  In 1958, Tom was working as a fitter at Nancekuke and had signed a declaration under the Official Secrets Act 1911. One day, he was the victim of an industrial accident, with another worker who has since died in an unrelated accident. Tom had been told to enter a laboratory cubicle without any protective clothing, after being told that it would be safe to do so. However, sarin was leaking into the cubicle.
  From that day onwards, Tom has been ill. He received no atropine, which many people believe is a partial antidote. He also did not tell his general practitioner of the accident, fearing the consequences of the Official

  819
  Secrets Act provisions. Tom's cholinesterase level dropped from 133 to 105 and did not return to normal for 15 months. Consequently, Tom was misdiagnosed, and therefore mistreated.
  It was not until 1969, when people started to understand Nancekuke's role, that Tom's GP realised that toxic chemicals were involved and referred him to a neurologist. He diagnosed nerve gas as being responsible for Tom's prolonged neurological and psychological problems. Later, a consultant toxicologist examined Tom and became convinced that sarin was responsible.
  Subsequently, Tom spent years of medical tribunals, appeals, counter-appeals and ombudsman involvement. It was a harrowing time, to put it mildly. I could spend the entire debate outlining Tom's case, but I do not have the time.
  It was eventually concluded that Tom had suffered from anti-cholinesterase action of organic phosphorous compounds. He received a very small payment from the Ministry of Defence. Tom has had to fight official secrets and duplicity for many years. It is time that his concerns were addressed.
  Another worker at Nancekuke who came to see me recently was responsible for testing the blood of fellow workers. On one occasion the machine that protected him from fumes malfunctioned and blew fumes into his face rather than away from him. To this day he has suffered effects consistent with toxic poisoning.
  I have also been contacted by people from constituencies further up the coast in Cornwall. They claim that toxic compounds were swept on to the beach at Padstow, leaving them burned and suffering from unusual and classic nerve gas effects. Their then Member of Parliament, John Pardoe, asked many questions about the subject. At much the same time, a large number of seals on the north coast were found dead. Decontaminants were flushed out through a cave into the sea. Those chemicals, rather than nerve gas, may well be responsible. We shall probably never know. Those who believe that they suffer to this day would like to know the answer.
  All that might be the stuff of anti-nuclear dissertations, were it not for Carlton Television's south-west news programme "Westcountry Live". Its "Insight" feature broadcast last month broke new ground in the long-running saga, producing the new evidence that many believe justifies a fresh inquiry.
  In 1970, because of concerns and legal battles, Ministers decided that a medical inquiry was required to look into the deaths and ill health suffered by workers at Nancekuke. I believe that there was a genuine wish to unearth the truth. I am pleased to say that it was a Labour Government decision. Sadly, in the interim between the decision to investigate and the results of the three-year survey, the Government changed complexion and the truth remained hidden. I am pleased that this Government have agreed to authorise the early release of the information. That is a tribute to open government and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues for agreeing to a request from Graham Smith, the reporter from Carlton Television, for privileged access to examine the documents at Kew a full three years early. They make disturbing reading.
  Beneath the rather prosaic language that civil servants of only a few years ago seem to have adopted, the message is clear. Some 41 men died—nine during
  820
  employment and 32 after leaving the establishment— between 1950 and 1969. We learn more than was published before about how they died. Some complicated statistical analysis was applied and the conclusion was reached that such a death rate was lower than the national average. If a small company employing 150 people lost 41 current and former employees among a relatively young and healthy cohort, alarm bells would ring.
  Those men were working not underground or at sea, but in a factory and a laboratory environment. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at the issue. Can fresh thoughts be applied and modern statistical analysis used?
  The key time for the production of nerve gas—we are talking about production, not research quantities—was the 1950s. During the four years from 1955 to 1959, there were 306 cases of respiratory disease—almost double the numbers for the following years. Can those figures be explained by procedures having been tightened up? Are the figures a reflection of the amount of nerve gas produced?
  The report made conclusions over a 15-year period from correspondence between civil servants in the Ministry of the Defence and the Office for National Statistics. The documents show that civil servants then were well capable of spin. They wrote to the director of chemical and biological defence research saying that they wished to amend the draft letters to Members of Parliament. They eventually claimed that it was impossible to draw conclusions. In effect, they redrafted the results of the investigation politically. There was clear evidence of a doubling of bronchitis among industrial staff. That was not reported to Parliament at the time.
  The overwhelming impression that one gets is of the civil servants desperately trying to manipulate the facts to help themselves out of a hole—not out of concern for the then Government's workers, but in terms of defending negligence claims. Meanwhile, trade unions and their members were fighting health actions, with the Official Secrets Act coming between them and answers.
  A number of my constituents have contacted me in recent weeks, and they are genuinely concerned. In many cases, they worked at Nancekuke at the height of production. What medical checks have there been on former Nancekuke personnel since the closure? Does my hon. Friend the Minister not think that, given the high incidence of bronchial problems at the height of production, a sensible course might be to look again at the medical records of those who worked there— particularly in the late 1950s?
  Will my hon. Friend look again at the case of Tom Griffiths and others—not necessarily because they seek financial compensation, but because they want to know what happened? I would like to know why it was felt that it was too dangerous in the 1950s to manufacture nerve gas at Porton Down or elsewhere, but all right in Cornwall. Was it because Cornwall is surrounded on three sides by water and has a relatively smaller population than other areas?
  Nancekuke was closed in 1980. It is now a RAF listening station and attached to RAF Portreath. I have written to request a visit to the station, and I hope that I will shortly receive a positive reply. I would like to see the site for several specific reasons. When Nancekuke closed, the chemicals were transported to Porton Down.

  821
  Could my hon. Friend confirm that, and tell the House who conducted the work? Also, the buildings and equipment that could not be guaranteed as clean after decontamination were buried on site. In effect, the polluted elements were left on site 23 years ago.
  As I said, the site is a labyrinth of mine shafts. I have been told by many local people that there is a widespread belief that some of the equipment was just dumped down shafts. Production was concentrated on three sites, with the north site as the hub. I understand that only the south and central sites are used by the RAF today, and that several buildings still standing, but used for production, are not currently used.
  Why is the north site not used? Are there fears for safety? When was the last complete survey conducted? Is it true that a survey of the site was conducted last year? Would my hon. Friend the Minister be prepared to use modern scientific techniques to survey the land to check that containers are not buried on the site, rather than relying on previous assurances? Will he ask the Environment Agency to monitor water levels for the foreseeable future?
  My requests are given more urgency, given the experience of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I understand that similar clear-up operations at Porton Down have revealed large amounts of buried chemicals—chemicals that we had been assured did not exist. I and many of my constituents have real concerns about this issue. What if the rumours are true, and there are chemicals buried locally? After 20 years, they may not be as securely buried as we would all wish. Did the recent survey find such evidence?
  Given that health and safety procedures were not as rigorous even a few years ago, might the materials be leaching into the ground? Given the Porton Down experience, will my hon. Friend the Minister conduct such a survey? This is a holiday area and, rightly, local people and visitors will want to know, and be reassured if he has the answers.
  I have felt as though I have been involved in a cloak-and-dagger operation since I started raising concerns about Nancekuke. Several figures in the county have implied that I am taking a risk in asking these questions. I find that rather fanciful, but respected individuals in the area have suggested that I take care.
  I would like to reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for his openness in enabling us to discover a little more about Nancekuke. Rather like the song, the opening of the documents has raised more questions than answers. Will my hon. Friend initiate the investigations that I am calling for? I cannot believe that it would be a problem, as the ability to locate chemical weapons and tackle leaks must be an element of armed forces training in a world where far too many countries have this capacity.
  Also, the ability to monitor those affected by nerve gas and other poisons must be a skill required in tackling chemical accidents. Pensions records should assist in locating those people, and the Government could gain many new friends if, once again, they showed that they were prepared to try to resolve the problems inherited from others.
  822
  We have this opportunity and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look with fresh eyes. These were toxic chemicals manufactured by and close to my constituents. We all need to know the answers and I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.
  11.55 pm
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for this opportunity to discuss the work of the former Ministry of Supply establishment at Nancekuke in Cornwall and also the case of her constituent, Mr. Tom Griffiths. She is a strong campaigner for her constituents and we take her representations seriously. I also want to record our appreciation of our skilled staff at Nancekuke, Porton Down and elsewhere, whose work has played such a vital role in the defence of our country and our freedom.
  Before I deal with the specifics of the case and the other points raised, I have to say that I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view on the issue, although I entirely understand the background to the concerns that she has raised. I hope that what I have to say this evening will allay fears that former employees at Nancekuke were at significant risk of being poisoned by nerve gas or, indeed, that activities at the site might have posed, or still might pose, some sort of hazard to the local population.
  It might be useful if I describe briefly the history of the establishment at Nancekuke and the site's present situation. I am sure that the House is aware of the use of chemical warfare by the Germans in the first world war when many of our service men suffered the debilitating effects of gases such as mustard and chlorine. I am sure that the House can also appreciate the devastating effects, not only for the individuals concerned but for our military operations. Those threats heralded the start of the research and development that have underpinned the UK's chemical and biological defence capability to the present day.
  The great war laid down the principles for the study of chemical warfare and chemical defence and, by the outbreak of the second world war, the ability to protect the UK and its forces against the use of gas had been brought to a level that was superior to that of any other nation. The development of our retaliatory capacity had been more limited but was greatly intensified during the second world war.
  Undoubtedly, at the time, our preparedness and that of our allies, did much to influence our opponents' decision not to use their considerable chemical warfare capability and we must be thankful that we were spared the additional casualties that would have been inflicted. However, it was the discovery of German shells containing nerve agents that provided a new dimension to the concept of chemical warfare and impetus to activities during the post-war period.
  The site at Nancekuke was one of several involved in the nerve agent programme. Established initially as an autonomous facility of the Ministry of Supply in 1951, Nancekuke was concerned at first with the investigation of processes for the production of chemical warfare agents.
  A chemical called GB—known to the Germans as sarin—emerged as the nerve agent on which the UK's chemical weapons were to be based and for that reason

  823
  was among the agents studied at Nancekuke. A pilot plant was built with a capability of producing up to one ton of nerve agent a week. Plans were also laid for a large-scale production plant. However, those never came to fruition because the UK decided to abandon its offensive chemical warfare capability in 1956.
  The pilot plant was decommissioned and, from then on, the work at Nancekuke was carried out solely in support of the defensive programme seeking to address the services' requirements for equipment to detect nerve agents in the field, for prophylaxis and therapy for nerve agent poisoning, for the protection of individuals and facilities, and for monitoring decontamination and residual contamination of terrain and equipment. Various nerve agents were produced but only on a laboratory bench scale.
  The House should be aware, however, that the work at Nancekuke was more wide-ranging than just the small-scale production of chemicals and agents for research and studies into the stability of those materials. There were many activities that did not involve working with nerve agents at all. For example, some production and development was concerned with riot control agents, chemicals for detectors, drugs for development as counter-measures, training stimulants and charcoal cloth for NBC—nuclear, biological and chemical—protective suits.
  I turn now to the general health of personnel working at Nancekuke. There is no evidence that personnel were likely to suffer effects on their health as a result of working there, or that the local population was in danger.
  I can say that because similar concerns were raised by the then Member for North Cornwall some 30 years ago, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They led to two studies by the Registrar General of the mortality and health of former employees up to 1969. As my hon. Friend knows from the answers to her recent parliamentary questions on this issue, the first study showed that the mortality of persons employed at Nancekuke was actually rather less than the average for England and Wales as a whole, possibly, it is said, due to climate and social conditions. This is also one specific instance in this matter where I have to disagree with her about secrecy: the results of the review were not kept secret but were published in the Official Report in 1970.
  My hon. Friend noted that 41 deaths out of a work force of 150 seems extraordinarily large. However, the deaths relate to the sum total of people who worked at Nancekuke over approximately its first 20 years, not to the number in any one year. Additionally, the number of staff on the site varied by year and, for some years, was in the region of 300. Regrettably, we no longer have records of precisely how many people were employed at Nancekuke over the period, but it probably ran into a couple of thousand.
  I shall risk disagreeing with my hon. Friend again. We are not convinced that the second study that looked at sickness data in Nancekuke employees warrants such attention as it has received recently in the media. Although the study into sickness and absenteeism among employees at Nancekuke could be taken to imply a greater incidence of some illnesses in some workers, it is worth stating the original expert conclusion that, due to a variety of factors, the data were insufficiently robust to be used as firm evidence of increased ill health among staff.
  824
  That was also the view of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1992, and that lack of statistical robustness is the reason why the results were not published formally. In fact, the paper itself explains why the comparisons between sickness rates at Nancekuke and the population at large might be considered invalid.
  For example, the data from Nancekuke includes all sickness absences, no matter how short, whereas the national data come from social security records that are confined to absences of at least four days. In addition, the industrial workers at Nancekuke constitute only a subset of the total work force at the site and yet were compared with the total UK working population. The report states that that
  "automatically biases the results against Nancekuke".
  There are also a number of other issues that could be held to invalidate the report. They include age ranges, national versus regional differences for illnesses such as flu, and Nancekuke's insistence—for understandable reasons—on medical examination for all minor episodes of illness. I do not have time to go into detail about them here but, in view of those shortcomings, it might have been expected that another review would have been carried out. However, all these years later, we do not know why that was not the case.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Given the lack of a review, will the Minister make it possible for those hon. Members—such as myself and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton)—to see the papers that are available to him? Clearly, there is no longer an issue of secrecy in this regard, but would it be possible to satisfy ourselves about the accuracy of what he is telling us?
  Mr. Spellar: I shall look into the matter, and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  On secrecy, I am sure that there is no question about the need for some classification to have been applied to various elements of the work at Nancekuke at the time. I should be very surprised if we disagreed on the issue of national security and the great sensitivities surrounding the chemical defence programme, but I understand that the need to protect such information can lead to unwarranted speculation and suspicion. However, the sickness data were not classified, and I am therefore pleased that I responded as I did to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
  Before I move away from possible health effects, it is fitting to turn to the case that my hon. Friend raised tonight—that of her constituent, Mr. Tom Griffiths, a Nancekuke employee who was accidentally exposed to sarin in 1958. I agree entirely with her that this was a very regrettable and unfortunate incident, but it was an accident, not an inevitable and predictable event. My Department accepted that, as a result of the accident, Mr. Griffiths suffered some short-term ill effects, and he received compensation in 1976. This is the only case that I am aware that my Department appears to have dealt with, and I am aware of only two cases that were handled by the then Department of Health and Social Security around 1970.
  The decision to close Nancekuke and transfer the remaining work to another establishment was taken during the 1976 defence review. Since 1980, the site has been

  825
  known as RAF Portreath. It is currently an Air Surveillance and Control System—ASACS—reporting post. As such, it forms part of the United Kingdom's air defence system. RAF Portreath also occasionally acts as a relief landing ground for search and rescue helicopters on training activities operating out of RAF St. Mawgan.
  I assure my hon. Friend that great consideration was given to drawing up a plan for the closure of Nancekuke in an orderly and phased manner, with due consideration of decontamination and disposal processes. It was certainly not the case that the withdrawal was careless or hurried, and no chemical warfare agents were ever disposed of to either the sea or the land at Nancekuke. In all, in the region of 20 tonnes of sarin were produced. Most of the nerve agents were chemically deactivated, and only small quantities were transferred to Porton for defence research. I am not aware of any chemical warfare agents being transferred to the United States, other than a few laboratory samples. Any other materials and decontaminated plant and equipment were disposed of at a number of clearly identifiable locations on the site.
  Nevertheless, I recognise that there has been an evolution in thinking about matters such as contamination of water supplies. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn about the land quality assessment that is under way at the site, in line with my Department's policy of undertaking such assessments over a 10-year period from 1996. In particular, surface soil and water samples which have been undertaken by the National Rivers Authority have shown no signs of contamination from toxic agents and, as a responsible landlord, we are considering how best to take this work forward, including appropriate consultation with the representatives of local authorities, the Environment Agency for England and Wales, English Nature, and other Departments.
  826
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of clear-up operations at Porton Down, but that is an essentially different situation. The site of concern there was a munitions testing range rather than a production facility.
  The House may also be interested to know that the former activities at Nancekuke were declared by the United Kingdom under the terms of the chemical weapons convention in 1997. In addition, a team of international inspectors has confirmed that the production facilities have been destroyed and that the few buildings remaining were not being used for chemical weapon purposes. The site will be open for such inspection for at least another 10 years.
  My hon. Friend asks if she may visit the site. She will be glad to know that the RAF will be happy to host her at RAF Portreath.
  In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituents will now feel more confident about this issue. As Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I have had the opportunity to understand in some detail the importance of our progress in understanding chemical, and, indeed, biological weapons. Nancekuke provided a valuable contribution, which is still relevant in this very uncertain post-cold war world.
  I commend to the House our public paper, published last July, which sets out our policy and strategy for defending the United Kingdom and United Kingdom armed forces against the threat of biological and chemical weapons. As I said at the outset, I also commend the excellent work undertaken by our employees in providing this service in defence of this country and of our freedoms.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister has replied to the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve midnight.

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

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
10 am
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I have a confession to make: I am slightly weird. There must be something slightly odd about me, because I seem not to be interested in the really important things in life, at least as defined by the popular mass media. I am not terribly interested in such vital matters as the private lives of presidents and princes, pop stars and television soap stars, which fill the front pages, and I cannot even claim great interest in the religious beliefs of football managers. What do interest me are matters that, given the number of headlines they generate, must appear to others to be trivial. To be honest, I get rather obsessed with the trivial pursuit of human survival.
In 1982, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, who at the time was Secretary-General of the United Nations, said, in effect, that he thought that the world was drifting towards war. He made that statement in London, the capital and centre of our media. What he meant was that there was a real risk of our drifting towards world war three, in which nuclear weapons would be used and the consequences for us all would be beyond human imagination. Mr. de Cuellar's speech gained two or three paragraphs in one Sunday newspaper. All our other papers were far too busy covering such issues as whether there was a relationship between Prince Andrew and Koo Stark—the really important issue of the day.
To introduce a measure of balance, I accept that the media would argue that they reflected public attitudes. They could claim that we as politicians are capable of being equally guilty in this respect. In addition, Mr. Perez de Cuellar's worst fears were not fulfilled: fortunately, the future held perestroika and glasnost, the ending of the cold war and the reversal of the nuclear arms race. Recalling the legend of Cassandra, I am aware of the danger of being branded a prophet of doom and so being unlikely to be believed, even though there is the rather worrying tradition of Cassandra's predictions coming true. At this time of millennium, when religious cranks prophesy false dooms, there is even greater reason not to believe doomsayers. However, the start of a millennium is perhaps a time when even politicians can look forward, beyond the traditional week—a long time in politics—to the next century, the next millennium and beyond.
If modern cosmological theories are correct, there is, I understand, the prospect of our planet surviving for a few thousand million years. It may therefore be presumed that we can expect the human race to survive for a few thousand million years. One of the greatest dangers to that being realised is, I imagine, an astronomical disaster—our colliding with another
154WH
planet, which worries the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), or our planet going out of orbit. But the other major threat must surely be weapons of mass destruction.
In the worst-case analysis so popular with defence analysts, even if we reduce weapons to the level proposed in the strategic arms reduction talks—START 2—there will be sufficient weapons of mass destruction to destroy the human race. There is no reason to suppose that, in future millenniums, we shall not be capable of producing weapons even more lethal than currently exist. We may have devised the means of destroying our civilisation before devising the means of preserving it. The fulfilment of that danger would render futile everything that we debate or do in this place—or, indeed, anything that anyone does anywhere.
In the science of risk assessment, it is usual to multiply the scale of a disaster by the probability of its occurrence. We are discussing a scale of disaster that ranges from unimaginably horrendous to absolutely so: "the rest is silence". In relation to probability, we ought not to forget that, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy said that he feared he had lost control of events and that the probability of disaster was between one in three and one in two. Surely, our greatest responsibility to those living in future millenniums is to ensure that that probability never again approaches those levels.
There are disasters on a lesser scale which might appear even more likely to occur. Localised nuclear war is possible—although its consequences would be anything but localized—as is terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. I fear that complacency at the end of the cold war resulted in our failing to take advantage of many opportunities greatly to increase our safety. It was as though, in the euphoria of cutting out a primary cancer, we failed to take adequate precautions to ensure against the development of secondary cancer.
Those dangers are not distant, but potentially immediate. Consider our position this year: China is talking about modernising and increasing its stock of nuclear weapons, the United States Senate has refused to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty and the Russian Duma is refusing to ratify START 2. It is a sad irony that Russia and America share constitutional arrangements whereby a president can make war—but not peace—without consulting the legislature.
The United States is showing signs of hardline, isolationist attitudes. Especially worrying during a period of electioneering are hardline statements on the anti-ballistic missile treaty and talk—even by presidential candidates—of cavalierly abandoning that treaty. Such action could undermine the credibility of all treaties, encourage other nuclear weapons states to begin to rebuild their stocks and increase the atmosphere of fear growing in Russia, where acting President Putin has issued a statement the effect of which is to lower the nuclear threshold and abandon the idea of partnership with the west.
All that might be electioneering rhetoric, but it is dangerous because it raises the risk of disaster engulfing us as a result of misunderstanding and accident. It has been said that, at some point in the past couple of years, the United States warned Moscow that it was going to launch a communications satellite from Norway.

155WH
However, Russian command and control were so poor that they forgot to warn the local radar station and a nuclear alert began. Imagine that happening in a time of more dangerous attitudes.
Perhaps Putin is only electioneering, but, in India, the Bharatiya Janata party's electioneering led to a dangerous position developing between that country and Pakistan, so reminding us of the perils of proliferation and localised nuclear wars. Who knows how frighteningly close India and Pakistan came to a localised nuclear war over Kashmir? Let us be under no illusions: we are not talking about only localised consequences, or even a devastating holocaust affecting only India and Pakistan, but talking about fallout, climate change—possibly even nuclear winter—affecting surrounding countries, many of which are desperately poor and rely on subsistence agriculture.
Proliferation also raises the possibility of weapons of mass destruction passing to some of the least stable states, which have some of the most unbalanced leaders. There is a risk of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, know-how and delivery systems spreading. Such fears have been exacerbated by the break-up of the Soviet Union, but proliferation poses risks from other countries too.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not that dangerous development one of the reasons for maintaining a limited anti-ballistic missile defence system to deal with threats from rogue states? Such a system could meet those threats, even though it could not meet a larger strategic threat from a super-power.
Mr. Savidge: I am strongly in favour of discussion and debate on that issue. I am aware that people line up on different sides of the argument. Some, for example, believe that if the United Nations had an anti-ballistic missile system, it would make us all safer. I am not sure that that argument is right, which is why I favour debate. I shall speak in more detail later about the "we are the good guys" syndrome. I am frightened about United States policy, which could give an impetus to the arms race, rather than reduce the number of nuclear weapons. It could also create paranoia in Russia and in other states. If there is a cavalier abandonment of one treaty, who will enter into treaties in future?
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the argument about rogue states is accepted by the United States, which has continued its programme to extend its anti-ballistic missile system, a precedent has been set that enables every other state in the world to express a fear about isolated attacks from rogue states and to argue that such a system should be an essential part of its defensive strategy? Those in the United States and elsewhere who support that argument should ask themselves whether the world would be a safer place if every state escalated the nuclear arms race with a further round of ABM defensive systems.
Mr. Savidge: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I shall say more later about the danger of nuclear futures.
156WH
To return to my previous point, rogue states give rise to the danger of know-how and materials spreading to other states. As civil satellites develop, there is a further possibility of blurring the distinction between rockets for military and for civil purposes.
The Aum sect of Japan alerts us to another danger—that of religious or political fanatics engaging in terrorism using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and such groups need have no problem with delivery systems. Before long, we could face a nuclear bomb in a briefcase, or a boat sailing off the west coast of the United States, spreading anthrax in the wind.
We all recognise that the probability of such disasters occurring is far too high, that we urgently need to reduce those risks, and that the issue should transcend party politics. Therefore, I am glad that we are talking in Westminster Hall, where the atmosphere is more conducive to dialogue and discussion than to point scoring.
No simple or single solutions exist. Treaty negotiations must be central, but they are in a parlous state. I have already mentioned the ABM treaty, and I am conscious of the fact that most hon. Members on both sides of the House think that we should press the United States to uphold its current negotiated treaty. I know that the Front Benchers of both main parties share the desire to persuade our US allies to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The early-day motion that I tabled showed overwhelming support among Back Benchers of all parties for such a policy.
All nuclear weapons states must recognise that we cannot indefinitely proclaim our good intention of making massive cuts in our nuclear weapons stocks, or even eliminating them, without producing results. People in other countries are suspicious that we sometimes sound a little like St. Augustine, who prayed for chastity, but not yet. I applaud the efforts that our Government, the United States and others are making to improve the situation in India and Pakistan, to persuade those countries to engage in the test ban treaty and to reduce the risk there. However, we should lead by example.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty will be renegotiated this year. The treaty was agreed in 1995, when people could see that the two major nuclear weapons states had made massive reductions in arms; however, they have made few cuts since. The danger is that the treaty will not be ratified, or that people might simply pay lip service to it and so enable proliferation to occur. In answer to the question of whether proliferation matters, some ideologues in the United States say that proliferation would make us safer and that it could constitute ultimate deterrence, because if everybody had nuclear weapons, no one would use them. The National Rifle Association of America uses the same argument in respect of guns, and we know how well that works.
There is an urgent need to give new impetus to efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I should like to refer to the proposal advanced by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), during the debate on the Queen's Speech. He said that the United Kingdom could take the

157WH
initiative by convening a conference of the members of the United Nations Security Council. The conference would discuss setting up new strategic arms reduction talks—START 3—involving all nuclear weapon states; reviewing all treaties, including the ABM treaty; promoting a declaration of all nuclear weapons stocks, with the aim of producing an inventory, which the UN would keep, of all the nuclear weapon stocks of all the de facto nuclear weapon states; and engaging in serious negotiations on weapons reduction and entry into a nuclear weapons convention.
That is a serious and sensible suggestion. The United Kingdom has already taken a lead on two of the other major issues facing our species: climate change and third-world debt. As we enter the new millennium, we could give no better lead than on the crucial issue of nuclear non-proliferation.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way again. Can he envisage such negotiations resulting in Britain giving up all its nuclear weapons while countries such as Russia, the United States, France or China retain some of theirs?
Mr. Savidge: I tend to think of such questions as technical matters which can be considered during negotiations. I say that for two reasons: first, the question whether all countries would give up their weapons at the same time would be a matter for negotiation; secondly, we should remember that we belong to military alliances, which means that Britain could be in a position to give up its weapons before certain other countries did. It could be rather difficult to say that Britain would give up all its weapons before certain other countries did.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Before he leaves the nuclear issue, will he tell the Chamber his views on the fissile material throughout the world that is currently unaccounted for? There is concern about the fact that approximately 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs are missing from Russian military stocks and, of the high-grade fissile material, 4 per cent. is unaccounted for. Would the hon. Gentleman feature that matter in the scenario that he is laying out for us?
Mr. Savidge: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I was, in part, thinking of that when I mentioned fears about proliferation. I intend to discuss the vital importance of trying to restrict fissile and other dangerous materials a little later on.
When thinking about nuclear disarmament, we should consider, not only "vertical", but "horizontal" nuclear disarmament, which includes detargeting, de-alerting and increasing notice-to-fires—steps that have already been taken by the United Kingdom—along with decoupling and separating warheads from delivery systems. I am using the terminology that Jonathan Schell employs in his valuable book "The Gift of Time", which is a summary of many useful suggestions made by leading experts around the world on steps that we could take to improve our safety.
We should be flexible about new thinking, wherever it comes from, and prepared at least to consider any confidence-building measures that are suggested.
158WH
Germany, for example, suggested no first use, although one is aware that, at the moment, that suggestion would be rather more welcome in China than in Russia. We should also examine constructively proposals from non-nuclear weapons states. As I said in response to the hon. Lady's intervention, we should also seek ways in which to control, as best we can, the spread of dangerous materials and delivery systems and to expand nuclear weapons-free zones.
We should not neglect the dangers posed by biological weapons—a most dangerous aspect of proliferation. They are often described as the poor countries' nuclear weapons and they are the weapons that can most easily be used by terrorist groups. The biological and toxin weapons treaty was useful, but was wilfully flouted by several signatories, most notably the Soviet Union. There was a simple reason for that: no verification was involved. Now, perhaps because of pressure from its biotechnology industries, the United States appears to be reluctant to adopt verification measures. In response to those members of the United States political right who say that the Soviet duplicity on this issue should show us the danger of trusting treaties, I quote Ronald Reagan, who said that we should, "Trust, but verify". Verification will be important in all future treaties.
By all means, let each nation look critically at every peace proposal, but let us also look critically at every proposal from our military-industrial complexes to expand our military might. I forget which of our eminent Victorian statesmen it was who, when told by one of the chiefs of staff that we should increase our garrisons in India in case the Tsar intended to attack Britain via the sub-continent, said that he was rather surprised that the chiefs of staff did not want us to garrison the Moon in case we were attacked from Mars. One example of why it is useful to remember that is the frequent assertion that we should develop weapons now, not because of any existing risk, but because someone else may develop nuclear or other weapons in future. Although 1 am not expert in the language of the stock exchange, I believe that trading in "nuclear futures" is dangerous.
I said that I would refer to the danger of nations adopting a "we are the good guys" mentality. Every nation and every treaty organisation has a tendency to think itself or its members as the good guys and to believe that everybody should therefore trust their good intentions. Even though we do not talk so much now about the other side being the bad guys, the fact that we still do not think of them as the good guys implies that they cannot be trusted. Given the current sensitive situation in Russia, it is important that we try to understand Russian perceptions when we pursue matters such as NATO expansion. It is not that we should not pursue such matters, but that we should try to see how other nations perceive our actions and ensure that our actions are not destabilising.
I have advanced only a few proposals; other hon. Members will undoubtedly want to make other suggestions during the debate. Above all, reform of the United Nations—especially the Security Council—is vital if we are to create a system of world governance, or even world government. We have to improve regional security and conflict resolution. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction cannot be disinvented, so we can be safe only if we can halt wars

159WH
and the causes of wars. As we look back over the experience of the past century, or even at our entire human history, we cannot be complacent about how easy it will be to lift the sword of Damocles from above us.
I am pleased that the all-party group that is being set up this week has attracted interest from hon. Members of all parties and with widely differing views on defence matters. It is vital that we leave behind old slogans, old positions and old arguments. We must be prepared to look at new thinking. Recently, progress has come from unilateral initiatives and unilateral responses, such as those made by the present Government and the previous Government. Progress has also been made by bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral negotiations. There is a place for all those.
Above all, we need to discuss, debate, publicise and make progress on these issues. We must not slide into a situation where, through accident, misunderstanding or an act of madness, ultimate disaster occurs. We must "not go gently into that good night". As we contemplate the coming millennium, we have the technical capability decisively to rein back the four horsemen of the apocalypse, or to unleash them with devastating effect in the coming millennium.
I conclude by quoting from what I regard as Albert Einstein's last will and testament: a manifesto that he signed with 10 others of the world's greatest scientists a few days before he died. It includes the following words:
"We are speaking on this occasion not as members of this and that nation, continent or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings—remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."
10.23 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on securing the debate. The number of hon. Members present this morning is proof of the debate's importance to the House, and the subject's importance to society and to the world.
If we had to pick a time of maximum difficulty in making progress on the arms control agenda, especially in respect of weapons of mass destruction, we would probably have to say that it is now. The period preceding the United States presidential elections is not usually one in which the American regime focuses on such issues. Russia is conducting an internal war in Chechnya, and great uncertainty among the Russian people about their Government and their future makes for a less than easy time there. The situation on the Indian sub-continent has become unstable following nuclear testing by India and Pakistan; that, inevitably, has knock-on effects on China. The issue of proliferation is of huge importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North made clear. The urgency of controlling proliferation is driven by the fact that, although the many achievements of control systems are there for all to see, there have also been many failures, the most obvious examples being India and Pakistan.
160WH
My hon. Friend touched on non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. It is important to recognise that what used to be called the poor man's bomb—although, these days, chemical and biological weapons should probably be called the poor person's bomb—retains its astonishingly dangerous potential. Although the verification regime for chemical weapons has slowly become adequate because of greater testing, the framework for biological weapons still has a significant way to go. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment specifically on the possibility of progress being made in respect of biological weapons. I pay tribute to the work done by British officials during the various negotiations on biological weapons. I have no doubt that they have done as much as anyone to keep that show on the road and drive the agenda forward. It is an extraordinarily difficult job, but Britain's role has been significant.
The simple truth is that Britain and the nuclear powers have a particular responsibility as regards biological and chemical weapons. If we, from our lofty standpoint as nuclear powers, say that we need do no more than exhort others either to abjure development of such weapons or to give up existing weapons, we are kidding ourselves: the rest of the world will not treat that as credible—it will simply say that nuclear development is not necessarily the cheapest way to get into the weapons of mass destruction game. We should not be surprised if people want more than mere posturing and words on our part.
The onus on nuclear weapons states is to examine how we can begin to break certain parts of that deadlock. There are no overnight solutions: I am profoundly convinced that immediate success is not available to anyone. However, progress is possible and, as a nuclear weapons state, Britain has a pivotal role to play. We must examine the future—the not-too-distant future—of our own nuclear weapons, because technological change inevitably brings the possibility of technological obsolescence. If we know what our own long-term plans are, we shall be able to strike a position on the world stage that gives us influence over other nuclear weapons states. An open and honest approach to the debate might also give us influence over non-nuclear weapons states. The current Government have already done far more to achieve transparency in that respect than any previous UK Government or, indeed, any other Government in the world. By setting such an example to the rest of the world, we enhance our ability to tell countries such as France and even China that it is important to seize the opportunity to de-escalate. The alternative is escalation.
I shall speak briefly on the crucial importance of China, India and Pakistan. Historically, this debate has had a European or, at least, a Euro-Atlantic focus. However, modern Asia currently represents the most unstable element in the nuclear debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, China is a modernising nuclear state, with nuclear developments in India and Pakistan forming part of its security preoccupations. This morning, the Financial Times reported that China's attitude to Pakistan had cooled because it now accepts the need to recognise India's nuclear developments, especially its development of long-rang missiles.
We must engage countries such as India and Pakistan in debate, even though they are not party to existing

161WH
treaties. That will be difficult. We must strip away the mythology—that having nuclear weapons is about national aggrandisement, when, in fact, it is rooted in national insecurity. We must persuade the people of India and Pakistan that nuclear weapons do not enhance their security. However, to do that we must be open and honest about our own long-term ambitions and our desire for nuclear de-escalation.
Belief in claims that the world's security is enhanced by expanding missile defence systems does not represent progress for any part of the world, whether the United States or elsewhere. Indeed, it must lead to intensification of the development of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Mrs. Gillan: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Americans testing a missile interceptor over the Pacific today? Is he condemning that and the defence readiness review ordered by President Clinton as part of the entire programme?
Mr. Lloyd: Using the language of condemnation is pointless. We should instead use the language of de-escalation and concentrate on ways to remove the tensions that lead to build-up.
The United States may be confident about its position in relation to Russia and the latter's weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capability. That may be a rational view, given that Russia is an economically enfeebled country that cannot afford to sustain its existing nuclear capability. However, the same is not true of China. The United States should be aware that China is achieving enormous economic growth, part of which may be invested in weapons development. If the United States believes that, in the long term, it can defend itself against China on the same basis as it does against Russia, it is sorely mistaken. The way to deal with China is to ensure that the Chinese are again brought to the table to discuss credible nuclear deterrence. In the long run, we want China to be committed to a nuclear-free world and to take positive steps in that direction.
I have spoken longer than I intended. I end by emphasising that, although we tend to concentrate on nuclear weapons, we must recognise the frightening capacity of biological weapons. We need a verification regime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North has said. However, the prospects for achieving that are further away than many of us would like. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that the British Government intend to press for a proper verification system for biological weapons, to parallel that for chemical weapons, which is at least beginning to work.
10.41 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): I am, in part, speaking this morning as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. My husband, Bob, was its chairman before he was killed, after which the group collapsed. When I entered the House, a group of friends and I formed a new group of the parliamentary Labour party CND, with which I am proud to be associated.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for introducing this debate on global security and the proliferation of
162WH
weapons of mass destruction—the full title is almost an adjournment debate in itself. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) whose comments were helpful and much in line with my own thinking on Pakistan and India. I have a decent knowledge of that subject because of the nature of my constituency.
I have been a member of CND for 41 years. I pay tribute to that organisation and to the European nuclear disarmament movement, which was led with great distinction by Edward Thompson. He wrote "Protest and Survive", of which I have a copy and which played an important role in making the people in this country aware of the dangers of nuclear weapons. But for the activities of the UK peace movement and similar groups throughout Europe and the rest of the world, including the United States, the US might have supported its foreign policy—particularly in Vietnam—by using nuclear weapons. The Americans had convinced themselves that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the second world war. What kept them from resolving the Vietnam conflict in the same way? I believe that their strong peace movement, about which we have heard too little, played an important role in convincing the US not to adopt the nuclear option in Vietnam.
To demonstrate that I am not stuck in a time warp of 1960s and 1970s politics, I shall turn to more recent aspects of the US war machine. "Master of Space" is the motto of the US Space Command—a joint air force, army and navy command set up by the Pentagon in 1985. In its "Vision for 2020" report, it makes clear its ambition of
"dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict … Space is the ultimate high ground".
General Joseph Ashy, commander in chief of Space Command, said in 1996:
"It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen … we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space, and we're going to fight into space … That's why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms.
Last year, Kofi Annan urged the United Nations' annual conference on disarmament to
"codify principles which can ensure that outer space remains weapons-free."
The first secretary of China's mission to the UN, Wang Xiaoyu—my Chinese is not all that good, so hon. Members will have to forgive me if I have not pronounced that correctly—said later in the year:
"Outer space is the common heritage of human beings—It should be used entirely for peaceful purposes and for the economic, scientific and cultural development of all countries as well as the well-being of mankind. It must not be weaponized and become another arena of the arms race."
The track record of the Chinese on human rights is less than wonderful, and I cannot imagine the cultural developments for which outer space could be used—unless it is as some sort of gigantic IMAX screen. However, the Chinese have a clear view that outer space is not there for an extension of the arms race.

163WH
Last November, 138 nations voted in the UN General Assembly to reaffirm the outer space treaty and its provision that space
"shall be for peaceful purposes."
Only the United States and Israel abstained. Lest we entertained any doubt about the Pentagon's position on the subject, Keith Hall, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Space, gave it to us loud and clear:
"Space dominance, we have it, we like it and we're going to keep it."
The US may be reluctant to pay its massive debts to the UN, but there is no problem with cash for research into weapons in space. The budget for Ronald Reagan's star wars, known under the Clinton Administration as ballistic missile defence, has held steady at about $4 billion a year, supplemented by additional, not-very-well-kept-secret billions: last March, Congress approved an additional $6.6 billion. All my information on America's ambitions for weapons in space comes courtesy of Professor Karl Grossman of the State university of New York, who has carried out a massive amount of meticulous research on the subject. His piece for The Nation, on 27 December 1999, which was jointly written with Judith Long, graphically illustrates the additional problem of space weapons being nuclear powered:
"It … offers the specter of a fleet of Chernobyls orbiting the Earth."
That is chilling.
Given the highly macho quotes from Pentagon sources, none of us should have been too surprised when, a few months ago, the Senate refused to ratify the international comprehensive test ban treaty. It was suggested that that was more about getting back at the President, post-Lewinsky, than about disagreeing with the treaty itself. Whatever the reason, it is a sad reflection on the thoughts underpinning the politics of what is now the only world power.
I come now to the subject of India and Pakistan and two very sad aspects of their nuclearisation. Last September, I went to Pakistan with four colleagues on a self-financed trip: we saw the appalling conditions in which the vast majority of people there live, and visited hospitals and schools where facilities are appalling. I also have first-hand experience from my advice surgeries, in which I talk to constituents who are some of the poorest people in Keighley, which is not a wealthy area. They are from Mirpur, part of Pakistan. Week after week, they send hard-earned money to their relatives in Pakistan, even though they can ill afford to send it; they do so because they recognise how much poorer their relatives are than themselves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, it is extremely sad that Pakistan followed India's example. Pakistan could have gained the admiration of the rest of the world by not following India's example and putting the welfare of its people before nuclear aggrandisement. I condemn India for starting the nuclear arms race on the sub-continent, but I also condemn Pakistan for following its example. During our visit to Pakistan, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and I spoke to many politicians
164WH
and political groups. We made it perfectly clear that we thought it an appalling travesty that one of the poorest countries should spend money on nuclear weapons.
If our country helped to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we would not only achieve a more secure future for generations to come, but contribute to the well-being of the millions who are undernourished, the children who are uneducated and the sick who are untreated. By reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons, we could take a lead in the world and set an example, especially for the underdeveloped countries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): May I make a plea to hon. Members? This is a very important debate and the Minister must be given adequate time in which to respond fully. If each speaks for approximately three minutes, I shall be able to call the three hon. Members who still wish to speak, because it is the tradition and custom of sittings in Westminster Hall to call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at approximately 11 o'clock.
10.52 am
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to comply with your request, but three minutes is a tall order.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on initiating this debate and on inaugurating the all-party group on this important subject, which had its first meeting this week. This important debate is taking place when international moves towards arms control are slowing down and the prospects are not good. As has been said, weapons of mass destruction can be biological, chemical or nuclear, and I shall comment briefly on each.
Biological weapons are prohibited under the 1972 biological weapons convention, but it is relatively weak and has no verification provisions. The ad hoc group in Geneva is negotiating a draft protocol that would create verification provisions. The spread of biological weapons would seriously threaten world peace, so a rigorous and effective verification process is vital.
The Government's policy on verification is good. It covers the range of inspection measures, from those that are routine to those that are challenged, and includes the sampling of materials at inspected sites. However, the United States is pursuing a policy that would fundamentally weaken the draft protocol by reducing the level of verification. The danger is that the powers for the verification of biological weapons programmes will be insufficient. The Government must take a strong position. I know that they have received support from European Union countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) spoke to the ad hoc group in Geneva when he was a Foreign Office Minister. A good signal would be sent if a current Foreign Office Minister went to the group and made it clear that we want an agreement on stronger verification procedures to be reached this year.
The 1993 chemical weapons convention operates successsfully, but there is a problem with the United States, which has made it illegal to send a sample from a United States site for laboratory analysis in another country. That is wrong—imagine if the Iranians or any

165WH
other country created such a law. The Government need to make official representations to the United States to make sure that this important convention is not weakened in that way.
The rejection by the United States Senate of the comprehensive test ban treaty was a serious setback for arms control. The pressure for a national missile defence system will have a destabilising effect; it is already building up to the United States abrogating the 1972 bilateral anti-ballistic missile treaty. That would have a dreadful impact economically and in terms of proliferation, as other countries such as Russia and China would greatly increase their number of ballistic missiles. It is an irresponsible policy by the United States and an abuse of their super-power status. It is also a marker for a future arms race. The Government should challenge the USA on its nuclear policy.
The United States has an obsession with nuclear weapons, even though its Ambassador Thomas Graham said during arms control talks that the perception that nuclear weapons confer a special status on a state is dangerous. That profile can only encourage nuclear proliferation—we have to lower it and move towards disarmament. The perception that chemical and biological weapons bring a mini special status must also be eliminated.
Britain needs a greater separation from the United States on nuclear policy. We must press for greater nuclear arms control worldwide. The counter-proliferation approach will not succeed in the long term, because it is a forceful approach that provokes hostility and resistance and is perceived as one state trying to rule and being partial. We must press ahead on the non-proliferation and agreement approach, which means strengthening laws and strengthening treaties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, United Nations reform is an important part of that process, as it includes proportional responses, administering international law and pursuing matters through the war crimes court. The United States has shown a resistance to complying with and participating in that expanded role for international law; it should be brought into the process. Ours is a dangerous world and current policies are making it more dangerous. Inaction and inertia are no answer. I urge the Government to pursue the arms control agenda.
10.58 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: One of the great advantages in having been involved in debates about nuclear defence and disarmament for nearly 20 years is that one can truthfully say, without conceit, that one has heard it all before. Indeed, it is usually helpful to recall that the period when arms negotiations were most complex, developed and thorough was the 1930s, when arms control efforts in the face of aggression led not to peace, but to disaster.
In the three minutes available to me, I shall make four points. The mathematics speak for themselves and the Chamber will forgive me if I do not develop my arguments as fully as I might have done. First, there are two ways of seeking the best method of keeping peace in the world: one is the "peace through strength" approach and the other the "peace through disarmament" approach. Sometimes, they are complementary, but
166WH
more often than not they are contradictory. They were contradictory during the cold war, when many of the speakers in the debate so far sided with the "peace through disarmament" approach. I would argue, and I think the majority of people in this country would agree, that the "peace through strength" approach was vindicated by events.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) rejected the argument for using ABM systems for defence against rogue states, because that argument could be used by any nation. That is an unrealistic view of why nations arm themselves. They do not arm themselves according to what other nations do and say, but after hard-headed calculation of the risks that they believe they face. Nations arming themselves with ABM systems will do so according to the threats facing them, not according to whether western democracies have a limited ABM system to prevent rogue states launching a handful of mass-destruction weapons against them. However, I concede that such a system would be destabilising if it involved trying to counter a strategic threat, as I said in an earlier intervention.
Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is often said to create an obligation for a nuclear-free world. I have always argued that such an outcome would make the world safe again for conventional warfare, which has killed countless millions in years gone by, especially in the century that has just ended. Article 6 brackets a nuclear-free world with a requirement for general and complete disarmament: one is not expected to happen before the other. I would be perfectly happy with a nuclear-free world, provided that there was also general and complete disarmament. However, I advise hon. Members not to hold their breadth.
Finally, I shall put in a brief word for nuclear deterrence. The late Professor Sir Henry Tizard was the most eminent of defence scientists. In 1944 and 1945, he estimated what war would be like after the end of the second world war, when the atomic bomb would be part of the world's arsenals. He said that
"the only answer that we can see to the atomic bomb is to use it ourselves in retaliation."
He was, of course, speaking about threatening to use the bomb, not actually using it.
He also said:
"Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood twenty paces apart and fired at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other's hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour."
That is why nuclear deterrence kept the peace during the cold war and has a role in international security in future.
11.2 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I shall be as brief as possible, making three points for mathematical clarity.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on securing this debate and on his work in getting the ball rolling on the all-party group for non-proliferation, which meets for the first time tomorrow evening. I hope that my hon.

167WH
Friend's work will lead to a debate in the next few weeks, as we approach the NPT review conference. That debate should take place in Government time, as the matters under consideration are weighty and complex, and deserve much more discussion.
I agree completely with remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), especially about chemical and biological weapons being of greatest concern, as the regimes controlling them are weaker than those controlling other weapons of mass destruction. I also accept what he said about the current climate not being conducive to calls for disarmament. With international tensions militating against such calls, we have reached the precise point at which the debate must continue and develop. Those who think they have heard it all before in the past 20 years—or even before then—have the most to learn from future debate.
Secondly, I want to mention the work of the New Agenda coalition, especially the debate at the United Nations last November. I remind hon. Members that the majority of people do not accept nuclear deterrents as a rational form of defence. The New Agenda coalition is a coalition of 60 states—which obtained the support of a further 51 states in the United Nations debate—that believes that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the survival of humanity. It is making an urgent call to the nuclear weapons states to intensify their actions to implement article 6 of the nonproliferation treaty, which commits them to seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons.
We should also remember that at that UN General Assembly in November there were calls from across the world—from South Africa in the southern hemisphere and from states in the middle east and central Asia—for the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones. We must understand that although nuclear weapons have been seen as an integral part of the defence systems of the nuclear weapons states in western Europe and north America, that perception is not shared by a majority of nations or peoples, including nations that could well afford to develop their own nuclear weapons systems if they chose to do so.
Thirdly, as we move towards negotiations on the NPT, I appeal to the Government to exercise the full range of their diplomatic powers and to take a lead internationally on global disarmament. We have a remarkable record of taking leads on various international issues over the past two years. For example, the Government worked on climate change in Kyoto, and they established a global precedent for the abolition of land mines. There was also the elimination of the debt of the very poorest countries. The Government could earn themselves great credit and do the world a service by taking the lead now on the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a plea to Liberal Democrat and other Opposition spokesmen. I want to give the Minister his full 10 minutes, so if they can reduce the length of their speeches, I am sure that hon. Members would be grateful.
168WH
11.6 am
Mr. Paul Keetch: I apologise to my researcher because I have just thrown away three quarters of the speech that she prepared for me. I shall be very brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on initiating this debate. He should in no way apologise for bringing these matters before us. I agree with him: sometimes we concentrate far too much on domestic politics.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the United Kingdom has a unique role to play in this context. After all, we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a leading member of the Commonwealth, G8 and the European Union. I want to canter through some of the things that we believe the Government should be doing. We congratulate them on much of what they have already done—we have certainly seen a sea change—but there is much more that could be done.
The chemicals weapons convention of 1997 has a strong verification mechanism, but the corresponding treaty on biological and toxin weapons does not have an equivalent mechanism. The EU has been pressing for a new binding protocol to establish such a verification regime, and we hope that the Government will push for that. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of nuclear control and disarmament regimes. We will be urging the Government to use their influence with our Commonwealth colleagues in India and Pakistan to ensure that those states sign up to the agreement. That is a matter of urgency.
We regard the decision of the United States Senate to reject the ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty as deeply unfortunate. We also believe that any break-out by the US from the ABM treaty would be deeply destabilising, particularly for relations with Russia and China. It would no doubt also encourage those countries as regards such systems. What additional steps are the Government taking to press the US on that? We have a special relationship with the US and this is one instance where we should use it.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned the call by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in the Queen's Speech debate for the UK to convene a conference of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. We believe that that would be a major step towards a new round of arms reduction talks. It should have no holds barred on what it can discuss. That would be a useful step for the Government to take.
We should also work to bring about an annual declaration of all nuclear weapons held by de facto nuclear weapons states under a UN weapons register. We should proceed with negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention to match those for chemical and biological weapons, and we should formalise the commitment of all nuclear weapons states to nuclear disarmament. We believe that an EU decommissioning agency should be established to co-ordinate EU-financed efforts to decommission the obsolete civil and military nuclear hardware of the former Soviet Union.

169WH
Finally, we believe that this country has a unique and unambiguous role to play. It is almost 39 years to the day that John F. Kennedy said in his inauguration speech as President:
"Let us never negotiate out of fear—but let us never fear to negotiate."
The United Kingdom can help to achieve that and the Government should take the issue forward. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North should feel satisfied by his efforts to encourage them to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has set a fine example. We should all be grateful to him.
11.10 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): I can come only a poor second to that canter around the block.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on initiating the debate. It was said during a by-election that the hon. Gentleman was savage by name, but not by nature. The gentle way in which he introduced a debate on the serious issue of war was greatly appreciated by us all, not least by me.
There is no doubt that the certainties provided by the threat from the former Soviet Union are now a fading feature of the last century. We can now see more clearly the modern threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles that carry them. However, we should not lose sight of the non-military security issues, which were touched on by some hon. Members this morning. The debate is about global security, which is threatened by nonmilitary factors as well as by weapons of mass destruction.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned income disparity and economic polarisation, which is one of the most common causes of sub-state violence. The deteriorating situation in Africa, for example, poses a threat to European security and we should not lose sight of that in our debate, or forget that energy and water shortages and access to raw materials are also security issues. Conflicts over water are predicted to be a major cause of war in the new century. Europe relies on resources from less stable parts of the world, and our continued security relies on uninterrupted supplies. Environmental deterioration is almost unstoppable. Each year, millions of people are displaced or perish as their land becomes incapable of supporting the community. Global warming will result in rising sea levels, so we should never forget that more than 50 per cent. of the world's population live in coastal and estuary zones. That poses an unprecedented threat to peace and security.
Internal wars are on the increase. Of the 82 armed conflicts between 1981 and 1992, all but three occurred within states. Conflict prevention must be at the top of our agenda, as it is vastly preferable to conflict resolution. We have not yet developed a satisfactory early warning system. The more that interference in the internal affairs of states occurs, the more we must ensure that the legal basis on which we intervene is secure. We need more analysis, and I make no apology for calling on the Minister once again to instigate a full inquiry into diplomacy and deployment in Kosovo. The Opposition
170WH
have long called for that, but it has been strenuously resisted by the Government. On the military side, the security agenda has changed from the relative simplicity of maintaining a nuclear deterrent to one that demands greater vigilance, increased diplomacy, more sophisticated allowances and the modernisation of our defences, to a degree that has not yet been recognised by many politicians, not least our own and our European counterparts.
Last year US intelligence estimated that, within 15 years, North Korea will have developed missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical or biological warheads with a range long enough to enable it to hit mainland America. Iran has tested a long-range missile to a distance of 1,300 km, which demonstrates the probability that that country, too, is successfully developing extreme long-range capability. Iraq has demonstrated its increasing capabilities: who can forget the devastating Scud missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf war?
The USA is currently evaluating the threats to establish whether the time is right to deploy a national missile defence system. As I mentioned earlier, today's edition of The Times carries a timely report on the test of the American missile interceptor. It states:
"The United States will today carry out its most important antiballistic missile test over the Pacific Ocean today, using an interceptor 54 inches long.
A successful "kill" will help President Clinton to decide whether to build a missile defence system in Alaska to protect against a rogue ballistic missile attack from North Korea or Iran."
The problems arising from the development of this missile defence system programme have resulted in the current complex discussions with Russia on renegotiating the ABM treaty. The United States is considering seriously co-operating with Russia on a missile defence system, not least because Russia itself will also be exposed to a threat from rogue states, and, as was rightly pointed out, is running short of funds. Indeed, its military system is in decay. I hope that the Minister will have time to outline the Government's stance towards the ABM treaty and its renegotiation, and their approach to the missile defence system. We in Europe seem to have taken little interest in these developments, despite the geographical inevitability that puts us well within range of the threat: we are arguably a more vulnerable target than the USA.
Our lack of interest in considering missile defence systems appears to be based largely on cost and technical feasibility, coupled with a preferred pre-occupation with creating a common European defence as part of a federal European super-state. Without doubt, the United Kingdom is being drawn more deeply into Europe to the exclusion of the US, at a time when Europe should work more closely with America to face the escalating threats. We need to impove western co-operation, not least to counter the sinister chain of co-operation now seen among proliferating states, and to continue to build on NATO and the foundations—laid over many years—of the trans-Atlantic partnership. I should like the Minister to confirm the Government's position in respect of that partnership, tell us what evalution he has made of the developing threats, give us his views on the missile defence capabilities of the UK and Europe and where he sees them going, say what, if

171WH
anything, is being done to establish the costs and the technical feasibility, and tell us what discussions about current missile tests he and his Department have held.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have stayed within your strictures. The Minister has at least 10 minutes to respond. I congratulate all those hon. Members who took part in the debate but whom I did not single out by name, and I congratulate once more the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North on initiating the debate because it takes this vital issue forward.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who speaks for the Opposition.
11.17 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): First, I apologise for being unable to take interventions on account of the constraints on time.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. He and other hon. Members have expressed various concerns, many of which I share. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who has provided me with a first-class platform.
In recent months, the world has become a much more dangerous place, as events in Russia, the USA and south Asia show. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) that the years ahead will be challenging for those of us who wish to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to improve global security, about which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made some valid points. However, I am not sure what the Opposition's policy is on this or many other issues before the House.
A constant challenge is to control the export of equipment, material and technology that might be of use to proliferators. It is hard, unremitting work which often requires difficult judgments. We play an active role in the relevant export control regimes, such as the Zangger committee and the nuclear supplies group in the nuclear sphere, the Australia group in the chemical and biological sphere and the missile technology control regime to prevent missile proliferation.
We are fortunate that a chemical weapons convention is in force, and that many key states are party to it. It contains effective arrangements to verify the destruction of existing chemical weapons and the non-production of such weapons in future, but we still need to secure universal adherence and compliance, together with full implementation of verification arrangements. The Government are pressing ahead vigorously on both fronts, and we strongly support the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague.
We are less fortunate with biological weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central is right, and I am grateful to him for his acknowledgement
172WH
of the work of Government officials. Many states have adhered to the biological and toxin weapons convention, but it does not have adequate verification arrangements. I assure my hon. Friend that we are putting major effort into the negotiations at Geneva to agree a satisfactory verification protocol to the treaty. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) that I shall visit Geneva in March to do exactly as he asks. We want those negotiations to be brought to a successful conclusion by the summer.
The main instrument for preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, or the NPT. One hundred and eight-two states have renounced nuclear weapons by adhering to the treaty as non-nuclear weapons states, but serious difficulties remain. The non-compliers, such as Iraq and North Korea, clearly must be brought back into compliance with the obligations that they have accepted. Until Saddam Hussein made their work impossible, we strongly supported the work in Iraq of the UN special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Since then, no Government have done more to secure agreement in the UN Security Council for the new resolution setting out the way forward, Security Council resolution 1284. We shall vigorously press all states to support the full implementation of that resolution now that it has been agreed. The United Kingdom is also contributing through the European Union to ensure that North Korea returns to full compliance with its safeguards and obligations.
We have constantly made plain our belief that the non-adherers—Israel, India and Pakistan—should sign up to the NPT by destroying their nuclear weapons capability and accepting obligations as non-nuclear weapons states. However, they are firmly convinced that their security positions do not yet permit that course of action. Trying to improve their security positions is therefore a key concern for us. We are heartened by the new impetus in the middle east peace process. Conversely, we are disappointed by the serious tension in the relationship between India and Pakistan, especially over Kashmir, which, as we saw in the Kargil incident last year, could easily become a flash-point for a nuclear exchange. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North was right about that. We shall do all that we can to seek an improvement in that situation, while pressing India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and to participate constructively in negotiations for a fissile material cutoff treaty.
The United Kingdom is in a particularly good position to press the case for those treaties. We have not carried out a nuclear weapons test explosion since 1991. With France, we have not only signed but ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. In 1995, we announced that we had ceased producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. The Government have already placed under international verification the reprocessing and enrichment operations that must be verified under any fissile material cut-off treaty. In short, we are practising what we preach.
Because of the importance that we attach to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, we have made no secret of our extreme disappointment that the US Senate has rejected it. We very much welcome the

173WH
Administration's refusal to accept that as the last word on the matter, and we shall continue to press for US ratification as soon as possible, along with ratification by Russia, China and all the other states whose ratification is essential to the treaty's coming into force. Similarly, at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, we are continuing to press for an early start to negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.
We shall work hard in the next few months to prepare for the conference of states that are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in April and May. That treaty remains the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of its parties remain fully committed to it. We agree with many of the non-nuclear weapon states that are also party to the treaty that want to push for faster progress towards nuclear disarmament. Here, too, the Government are practising what they preach.
I welcome the acknowledgment of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of the sea change that has been brought about by the new Labour Government on such matters. Since the end of the cold war, we have reduced the number of our operationally available warheads by 50 per cent. We have taken steps to maintain our remaining nuclear forces at a reduced state of readiness. We have been completely transparent about our stocks of nuclear material, military as well as civil. Work is in hand to develop expertise at Aldermaston in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, and we have made it clear that, when we are satisified with progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in those negotiations.
We have been trying to lead by example and our diplomats have been active and creative in trying to persuade other nuclear weapons states of the need for continuing progress in the right direction. The crucial issue is the future of the strategic arms reduction treaty process and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. There is a potential conflict of interests between two important considerations. On the one hand is the desirability of limiting defences against strategic ballistic missiles to provide the basis for continuing reductions in offensive, strategic nuclear forces. On the other hand is the possibility of defences against such missiles offering some protection against the consequences of their acquisition by new or rogue states that do not form part of established deterrent relationships. Such matters are complex and difficult, but I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) about the dangers of unilateral responses to rogue states becoming a universal risk to humankind.
174WH
The Government, therefore, much welcome the fact that the United States and Russia announced in June last year that they would begin discussions on a third strategic arms reduction treaty and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We welcome the fact that such discussions have been proceeding intensively during the past few months and look forward to a satisfactory conclusion. We are also looking forward to engaging fully with our NATO allies in the review of alliance policy options on confidence and security-building measures, verification, non-proliferation, and arms control and disarmament. The alliance committed itself to that exercise at the Washington summit in April last year. That process is now being undertaken by responsible NATO bodies and we expect a report to NATO Ministers in December this year. Although we do not believe that the review should lead to fundamental changes in NATO's new strategic concept announced at the Washington summit, we hope that it will make a helpful and positive contribution to the way forward in such important arms control areas.
The Government are working extremely hard not only to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but to make progress towards our goal of the elimination of all such weapons. Ultimately, the achievement of both objectives is essential to long-term global security. Neither will be fully achieved without the other. In that respect, I very much welcome the setting up of the all-party group on such matters that is sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North. I welcome also the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has taken up the mantle that her husband pursued extremely vigorously over his years in Parliament. It is good to have such a voice heard loud and clear.
There is almost universal agreement in the House, apart from some elements on the Opposition Benches, about a united and vigorous response by the Government to try to tackle the problems of global insecurity and the need to ensure that we have proper controls on the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. There is a great deal more to do, however, and we must work together to achieve such an outcome. The work is hard and tough but, as I have tried to demonstrate, the Government are pursuing such a mandate with great vigour, certainly with much more energy and diligence than that displayed by our predecessors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, it is important that we carry on the agenda and achieve a much safer world and, thereby, eliminate the possibility of the whole of humankind destroying itself and, with it, the environment and the very future of the planet.

Private Swimming Pools
11.30 am
Mr. Colin Breed: The matter that I wish to raise today is not only of great interest to people in my constituency of South-East Cornwall; it is of great relevance to people throughout the United Kingdom who holiday in this country.
Last summer, at Honicombe Manor holiday park, near Callington in my constituency, two young girls tragically drowned in the privately owned swimming pool at the holiday centre. The coroner's report, issued two weeks ago, was most distressing because it revealed that, had the pool complied with the guidelines set out by the Health and Safety Executive, the deaths could have been avoided. The pool was not supervised by a lifeguard; there was no emergency alarm or poolside telephone; and the pool shelved rapidly to a deep section that was not properly signposted. All those factors go against the guidelines and recommendations set out in "Managing Health and Safety in Swimming Pools"—a document recently updated by the Health and Safety Executive and the Sports Council of England, which I wholeheartedly commend and endorse.
I bring the matter to the House of Commons today in the hope that something can be done to ensure that accidents such as that latest tragedy do not happen again. The problem with private swimming pools—for the purposes of our debate, I mean pools in hotels, camp sites, self-catering complexes and similar establishments, but not domestic pools—is that they are not subject to the demands of specific regulations. They need comply only with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which states that their owners should accept a duty of care. As I said, guidelines exist on how to do that; they are good and comprehensive, but they are little more than suggestions of how best to meet the health and safety at work regulations. They contain few specific requirements and, if the guidelines are not heeded, pool owners and operators face little threat of disadvantage.
Local authorities have the power to issue orders for improvement, or prohibition orders. However, as illustrated by the case in my constituency, those orders are not always heeded, and the system of checks is not as rigorous as necessary. In light of the number of accidents that have occurred in such facilities, that cannot be allowed to continue.
The coroner at the inquest in the Honicombe Manor case has, in recent years, presided over inquests into seven deaths in holiday industry pools in Cornwall. Statistics prepared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents show that the number of drownings in private pools has been worryingly high for a number of years. Of most concern is the fact that, although the number of accidents in public pools has fallen, the number of accidents in private pools has not. In 1998, the number of deaths in private pools was more than double the number of deaths in public pools. That illustrates the fact that, if the new guidelines were rigorously enforced in private pools, as they are in municipal pools, lives would be saved.
176WH
Surely it is time to take the advice of the coroner, who said that
"there is no system of licensing of holiday pools and there is because of the wide range of other duties a limited expertise available to the inspecting authority".
He recommended the introduction of a licence for pools to be granted or withdrawn on satisfactory inspection of the implementation of guidelines. I understand that he has written to the Government and, in the light of his experience, I hope that his words will be heeded.
The vast majority of those who operate private pools do so responsibly and ensure that the design and future operation of their facilities meet all the safety standards. However, we need to ensure that all pools meet the minimum standards and can be taken out of action immediately if they are found to be substandard. I should stress that I intend to call for such legislation.
My constituency has a thriving tourism industry, so I do not wish to make it more costly or difficult for holiday complex owners to provide leisure facilities. My constituency is also on the coast, so I am only too aware that the number of deaths in swimming pools is tiny compared with the number of deaths in rivers and the sea. I do not want to discourage the use of swimming pools, as it is enjoyable and valuable.
We want our children to learn to swim and to become strong swimmers by swimming regularly, and pools are the safest places for them to do that. However, they are safe only if the pools are properly supervised, if there are clear markings to show where unconfident swimmers can swim within their depth and if there is a clear action plan for when things go wrong, as they sometimes do, albeit rarely. We must also remember that many schools use local private pools for swimming lessons.
The fact that other swimming areas are more dangerous is no excuse for inaction. I fully accept that there will always be risks attached to leisure pursuits involving water. Simple, relatively inexpensive precautions should be taken, however, to ensure greater safety in private swiming pools.
The guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive are extremely well thought out. Although they recognise that not all swimming pools will meet top standards at all times, they give clear, sensible guidance on how to minimise risk. We must ensure that the guidelines are properly implemented. Had they been, I am certain that there would not have been a pool with a sharp and badly signposted shelf to a deep section, no poolside alarm and no lifeguard, although not all those might have been realistically available while a small holiday business maintained commercial viability. Had the recommended system been in place, however, the pool would not have been granted a licence until a least its gradient had been lowered and a trained and qualified specialist health and safety inspector had outlined and approved a clear emergency plan.
Several problems relate specifically to swimming pools. We are all aware that swimming pool design and installation differ from what existed a few years ago. We are aware of recent cases in which hair has been trapped in filter systems, injuries have resulted from poorly designed water slides and flumes, and accidents have been caused by poor layout such as low-level overhead pipes. We have also heard about more common problems, such as bad signing of deep areas, sharp

177WH
shelves into deep water and slippery poolside surfaces. We need properly qualified people who are trained specifically to spot those potential problems and enforce recommendations at design stage and when the pool is commissioned for use. Such a regime would not be difficult to implement. Existing environmental health officers need to be qualified in the specialist subject of swimming pool safety.
The vast majority of our swimming pools are as safe as we can make them: it is the others that we must tackle. Even the worst pools are less hazardous than the open sea, but there is room for improvement. When we are dealing with people's safety, we should not delay taking every possible step towards improvement. There is always a cost to increasing regulation. We must bear in mind the fact that, often, only limited resources are available to small holiday complex owners and indeed, local authorities. However, I am sure that all holiday complex owners want to provide safer facilities for their customers.
My aim in suggesting a licensing programme is to encourage a more proactive approach to swimming pool safety, in both their construction and the organisation of their use, than the current system of orders to improve and prohibition orders, which, by their nature, are reactive. If pool owners knew that they had to meet minimum standards before being allowed to open their facilities, best practice would be encouraged from the outset. That would be especially effective in encouraging better swimming pool design, which has been identified by ROSPA as one of the chief sources of danger in such swimming pools. It would involve considerable collaboration between the agency responsible for inspection and the planning authorities, but I do not see that as an insurmountable barrier.
The Health and Safety Executive takes seriously the dangers that can be associated with swimming pools and has, in response to previous cases, commissioned inspections of pools. Unfortunately, when the personnel sent to carry out those inspections are not qualified specialists and the immediate threat of a loss of licence is not a possibility, there will always be some irresponsible owners who do not take the action necessary to comply with the best practice as laid out.
I have spoken to the local council involved in my constituency and it has expressed its support for a scheme of licences. Furthermore, in a recent letter to me the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management recognised a
"clear need to do more"
than is done at present. I believe that those endorsements show willingness by the industry to move forward to safer regulation, and as I have mentioned, the coroner is calling for that approach too.
To summarise, I am not convinced that the duty of care requirement as created in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is specific enough to deal with the particular problems associated with private swimming pools. Most establishments in the holiday industry require adherence to strict safety precautions in relation to fire. Fire certification has dramatically improved consumer safety in hotel accommodation. It is time to introduce similar measures for swimming pools.
We should have a stronger system of licensing starting at the design stage so that safety features could be designed in at an appropriate time. It should follow
178WH
through to the commissioning stage so that a pool is constructed in the way it should be. Pools should be subjected to regular inspection, whether yearly, two yearly or three yearly, with the possible addition of spot checks. There should also be enforcement powers to close down a facility if necessary. Such a regime is called for by the coroner and my local authority and is supported by the professional institution. I ask the Minister to consider these representations seriously so that we reduce the incidence of these tragic accidents.
11.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): It is a pleasure to respond to my first debate in this Chamber under your supervision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this debate. I should also like to tell him how sorry I am about the tragic incident that occurred in his constituency in which two young people from, I believe, the north-west lost their lives—[Interruption.] I apologise if that was incorrect. My sympathy goes genuinely to the families who have suffered such an appalling loss.
According to figures produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, there are about 10 to 12 fatal accidents in swimming pools each year. Any drowning is a significant tragedy. At least some of that albeit small number of deaths in swimming pools could have been prevented by pool operators taking greater precautions, by bathers exercising more care, or by a combination of both. There has been an apparent blip in the figures this year, showing that a larger proportion of the annual fatalities has happened in private pools. That blip does not affect the trend over recent years, when fatalities in both private and public pools have been more or less the same.
I know that the number of deaths is very small compared with the number of people who use pools, but that is of little consolation to those who have lost family members. I fully appreciate that, and accept the view that any fatality is a tragedy. Statistically speaking, swimming pools are relatively safe. The number of fatalities is very low compared with the estimated 7 million people a year who use them, and the benefits of swimming far outweigh those risks. Swimming pools have been proven to be far safer places to swim than open water, which claims about 400 lives a year.
As the hon. Gentleman will know from his area, in recent years there has been a steady increase in the number of people taking holidays in the United Kingdom. People enjoy an increasing amount of leisure time, and the number of people using swimming pools—especially private pools in hotels and holiday camps—has increased. The Health and Safety Executive is aware of that phenomenon and has taken steps to ensure that the increase in the number of pools and users does not cause unnecessary hazards. The HSE has tried to work closely with industry representatives, local authorities and sports councils to ensure that the best possible advice is available to those responsible for running swimming pools.
We must ensure that pool operators and users take health and safety issues seriously. Pool operators should be aiming for the highest levels of safety, which

179WH
would benefit them as more people were encouraged to enjoy the benefits of swimming in a safe, well-run swimming pool. To help those involved in running pools to focus on what is needed to operate a safe pool, the Government and the Health and Safety Commission have put in place a robust and rigorous regime, which we believe has been instrumental in keeping fatalities in swimming pools at a very low level. That has been achieved through a goal-setting legislative approach, the production of detailed guidance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, where necessary, proportionate enforcement action.
I shall say a little about the various elements of that regime. Legislation applies to swimming pools only when a work activity takes place; it does not apply to private pools in people's homes. The legislation applies to public pools and those in holiday camps, hotels and private health clubs. There is no specific legislation, but the Health and Safety Commission and Executive use the provisions in sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, and supporting legislation. Under section 2, pool managers have a duty to protect people working for them; under section 3, they must ensure that their work activity and that of their employees—the provision of swimming facilities—does not cause harm to others, such as pool users or those who have access to the swimming pool. There is a clear locus of responsibility relating to swimming facilities and pool users.
More specifically, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers and pool operators to undertake an assessment of the significant risks involved in their work activity and to identify and put in place the control measures necessary to ensure that the risk of harm is minimised so far as is reasonably practicable. To help pool operators to comply with their duties under that legislation, the Health and Safety Commission, together with Sport England, published the revised guidance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, "Managing Health and Safety in Swimming Pools". The new publication was produced to replace the previous guidance "Safety in Swimming Pools", which had also been jointly prepared by the HSC and Sport England in 1988. It was revised to take account of the requirements of health and safety legislation that had been introduced since then, including the 1999 regulations and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which make explicit many of the general duties that were set out in the original Act, such as maintenance of the workplace and of equipment, devices and systems.
Mr. Breed: Does the Minister agree that all those regulations are, as I said, largely reactive? They are made after contraventions have occurred, rather than being in place in the first place.
Ms Hughes: I certainly agree that, under the current regime, the onus is on the pool operator to ensure that he or she has undertaken a risk assessment and put in place the measures that that assessment identified as necessary to minimise risk. That is where the primary responsibility lies. There is also a responsibility on local authorities to inspect pools and enforce the provisions
180WH
of the guidance. Together, those two loci of responsibility offer a robust regime which, in the vast majority of circumstances, ensures safety to a standard which, as I said, achieves a very low incidence of accidents and fatalities.
The revision of the guidance presented an opportunity for the HSE to respond to requests from the industry to incorporate other changes that would take account of technological advances in equipment, training methods and so on. To pick up on another point that the hon. Gentleman raised, the revision takes account of the experiences not just of those who use swimming pools, but of managers, inspectors, designers, architects, manufacturers and builders. There is a huge push from the industry as well as from the Government and local authorities to design and build in safety for swimming pools in the way that the hon. Gentleman advocated.
The guidance has maintained a consistently high profile over the year since its publication. It is recognised as independent and was constructed with the input of representatives from the public and private sectors, consumer interest groups and other professional bodies. The HSE and the HSC believe that it has been effective in raising awareness of the many hazards associated with the preparation and use of swimming pools and, as a consequence, has contributed to the reduction in swimming pool fatalities.
Like its predecessor, the new guidance was widely welcomed in all sectors of the industry. Our evidence from pool operators who have taken it up is that they have taken on board the need to incorporate it in their practice. If pool operators follow the advice that it gives, they will have gone a long way towards preventing a further loss of life. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the rigour and robustness of the guidance—if it is followed—should ensure very high standards of safety.
Most privately owned pools in the UK fall under the responsibility of the local authorities that enforce health and safety law on behalf of the HSE—although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, if a local authority owns the pool, the HSE is the enforcing authority. As the risk of serious harm as a result of a visit to a swimming pool is quite remote, the frequency of health and safety inspections is based on available resources and other priorities, based on levels of risk. None the less, the strategy for 1999–2002 devised by the HSE and the local authority enforcement liaison committee, the joint committee that considers such matters, includes as a key indicator and an objective for local authorities a reduction in incidents in swimming pools. Evidence clearly suggests that the HSE and local authorities are aware that the regime's robustness depends partly on enforcement and inspection, and have made it their objective to ensure, through enforcement and inspection, a reduction in incidents. They aim to achieve that through the promotion of the recently published guidance and by raising awareness of specific health and safety risks so that pool operators can take the steps necessary to reduce the risk of an incident happening in their pool.
Under the existing legislative framework, using a goal-setting approach and with the involvement of industry in the production of guidance, the HSE has been able to ensure that a template is available for pool

181WH
operators to reduce further the number of fatalities in swimming pools. That, coupled with enforcement action where necessary, provides a structured and balanced approach to ensure safety. It is through that overall approach to managing health and safety in swimming pools that the HSE has managed, it would argue, to obviate the need for sector-specific regulation, which might, arguably, merely duplicate existing requirements in more general health and safety legislation, and, therefore, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, make it more difficult for businesses and local authorities to provide facilities for people to learn and enjoy the benefits of swimming. We must remember that it is the responsibility of pool operators to ensure that they have done everything reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of harm to people in their pools through either working or bathing.
Mr. Breed: Is the Minister confident that the people who are asked to carry out the inspections on behalf of the HSE are properly trained and qualified? Unfortunately, it seems that, in this case, the main problem was missed twice. No formal qualifications seem to be involved in the inspection of the health and safety aspect of swimming pools.
Ms Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot comment on that particular case. I do not know all the details, and, in any case, the district council may take further legal action. Presumably he is questioning me about whether local authority inspectors are competent. In researching the matter for the debate, I have found no evidence to suggest that local authority inspectors in general are not competent. Local authorities make an effort to ensure that inspectors have specific training when they make inspections. If the issue should arise in a particular case, we shall consider it.
The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Department consider the coroner's recommendation, which is, if I understand him correctly, for a more proactive licensing regime, as opposed to the current regime, in which responsibility lies with the operator to conduct a risk assessment, followed by an inspection of that risk assessment and of the measures that it identifies, together with any necessary enforcement action. Taking the picture in the round, I cannot assure him that a system of licensing would be considered the best way forward. However, I assure him that if the coroner, or anyone else, makes such representations to us, we will look at them in detail and consider them thoroughly. We will not just dismiss them out of hand. I hope that that is sufficient for him at the moment.

Clyde Shipbuilding
12 noon
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I am very grateful for this opportunity to debate the important issue of the future of shipbuilidng on the river Clyde. I also thank my colleagues for their support and attendance today, demonstrating the importance of the industry to their constituents and to our country.
Shipbuilding has a proud history on the Clyde. The industry was a dominant force in Scottish manufacturing and a major producer in the world market. Britain's empire and wealth was based on the Clyde yards, as pioneers of innovation and shipbuilders of quality.
As much as one sixth of the world's shipping was launched from Clydeside berths in 1913. Significant competitive pressures since then have led to a decline in the role of Scottish shipbuilding in both the world market and as a force in our economy. From employing around 60,000 in the 1950s, Scotland's shipbuilding work force now employs around 10,000.
Production in Scotland is largely dominated by four yards based on the Clyde: Govan and Yarrow on the upper Clyde; Ferguson's on the lower Clyde at Port Glasgow; and Ailsa Troon on the Ayrshire coast.
Govan is the largest builder of merchant ships in the United Kingdom. The yard has of late specialised in the design and build of large, sophisticated gas and chemical carriers, as well as specialist, one-off vessels for a wide range of uses. Yarrow is the largest shipbuilder in Scotland. The yard has fully covered facilities for building both steel-reinforced and glass-reinforced plastic vessels and has dry dock facilities. It also has an advanced 3-d design capability. The shipyard specialises in the design and build of naval vessels for the Royal Navy and overseas navies.
Of the two smaller shipyards, Ferguson's has developed a market in building small ferries, such as platform supply vessels for the oil industry. Ailsa Troon has only recently re-entered the shipbuilding market, having for some years specialised in marine fabrications, and ship and boat repair work. The hallmark of all four yards is the Clyde-built quality, which sets the Scottish industry apart from its competitors.
My involvement and focus are very much on the Govan shipyard in my constituency. As the local Member of Parliament, I have shared the roller-coaster ride of the past year with the dedicated and skilled work force and their families. My constituents value the former Fairfields yard as the major employer in Govan. Following the announcement last April that the Kvaerner group were seeking to sell or close the yard, the Government worked hard to secure a buyer for Govan. In particular, I must praise the efforts of the task force led by Sir Gavin Laird and by hon. Members for pulling together in support of the Govan workers who reside in constituencies across Scotland.
I must also praise the success of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland in securing the deal that saw the yard transfer to GEC Marconi, now part of BAe Systems. The Scotland Office, the new Scottish Executive and Members of the House and of the new Scottish Parliament have all shown, by working in

183WH
partnership to secure and promote the Govan yard, that Scotland benefits from bringing government closer to the people.
Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government's sympathetic approach to the shipbuilding industry—which he initiated when in the former Scottish Office—will continue, given its importance to Scotland and the United Kingdom? The shipbuilding regulation adopted by the European Union in 1998 aims to refuse aid on measures to help the industry to improve its competitiveness. The United States delay in ratifying the 1994 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shipping agreement means that yards on the Clyde are vulnerable to uncompetitive pricing practices elsewhere. Regular discussions with Govan shop stewards, led by yard convener Jamie Webster, show that that is a major concern for the Govan yard.
Last year, the European Commission report on world shipbuilding outlined low pricing by yards—especially those in Korea—which sometimes resulted in losses between 14 and 40 per cent. of the calculated building price. After recent difficulties in the far eastern economies, there are genuine concerns that International Monetary Fund-led rescue packages may allow heavily subsidised Korean yards facing bankruptcy to continue to trade at a loss.
I urge the Minister and the Government to continue to investigate whether the conditions and assumptions under which the IMF made the Korean rescue packages are fully respected. It is vital that the Government identify enough evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in Korea so that the World Trade Organisation can take measures to rectify the position. In addition, I urge the Government to continue to help to establish international trade disciplines for a level playing field in world shipbuilding.
The shipbuilding intervention fund will not be available from the end of this year. At present, that operating aid allows British merchant yards to subsidise up to 9 per cent. of the contract value at the time of signing the contract. I fully understand Govan's concern at that decision, but appreciate that such aid has not always helped shipbuilding competitiveness across the European Union.
Last week, the enterprise Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive released £2.7 million in intervention aid for Harland and Wolff in Belfast. As in Scotland, the new devolved Administration has continued the UK Government's active support for the shipbuilding industry. Workers on the Clyde seek Government assurances that any remaining opportunities for such aid this year will not be ignored anywhere in the United Kingdom.
The home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme currently provides loans to finance the construction, completion or radical alteration of ships and mobile offshore installations. At present, guaranteed loans are available for up to 80 per cent. of contract value for ships and up to 85 per cent. of contract value for mobile offshore installations, such as rigs. Will the Minister outline the perceived extent of its success and whether proposals for altering or improving the scheme are likely?
184WH
In Europe, the Council regulation abolishing contract-related aid at the end of this year permits measures to improve the competitiveness of shipbuilding through capacity reductions or productivity increases. On Clydeside, we especially welcome research and development aid and investment aid for innovation. James Watt developed practical steam power on the Clyde, and Govan yard owners Napier, Elder and Kirk pioneered engine innovations that dominated marine engineering for decades. Napier, the father of Clyde shipbuilding, built the first iron ships for the British Navy in Govan. Our proud heritage is matched by a determination to maintain the Clyde's reputation at the cutting edge of the industry in the new millennium.
In Europe, the Industry Council has concentrated on heavy industry, such as shipbuilding and steel, with the emphasis on state aid. With the European Union aid regime moving towards horizontal aid and away from aid for specific sectors, I must impress on my hon. Friend the Minister the need to ensure that the shipbuilding industry is not moved down the agenda and sidelined in future meetings of the Industry Council. My hon. Friend the Minister supported the formation of a shipbuilding forum, comprising representatives of yards, unions, suppliers and customers, to increase British yards' share of EU ship purchases. That partnership approach is widely welcome for Scotland and the United Kingdom. A united industry will always be stronger pursuing common interests, and I praise the commitment of the Labour Government in initiating and continuing that strategy.
On the Clyde, we welcomed the confirmation, by the Minister for Defence Procurement in November, that Yarrow would be the prime contractor for the new type 42 destroyers. An initial contract has been let with BAe Systems to carry out studies on the programme. It is hoped that the BAe Systems partnership of Govan and Yarrow will reap further benefits in future work.
The Defence Procurement Agency's pending decision on roll-on, roll-off vessels is of immediate concern to Govan, as a shipbuilder, and its sister yard, Yarrow, as an outfitter. Govan leads the Sealion consortium bid for six ro-ro ferries, each worth £35 million in a public-private partnership initiative for the Ministry of Defence. Those vessels will have strategic sealift capability to transport equipment for the new joint rapid reaction force. They are not warships, but ro-ros of a commercial build owned by the service provider. The MOD has learned in the past that it cannot rely on commercial shipping to provide ro-ros at short notice or value for money.
On Friday 14 January, the deadline for final ro-ro bids, the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the Govan yard, underlining his recognition of the importance that such a contract could play in the yard's future. The First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning have expressed the Scottish Executive's total support for the bid. Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament are united in support of Govan. We all fully appreciate that the Defence Procurement Agency will follow proper procedures in awarding the contract, and that a decision will be made that benefits the taxpayer and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I am confident that the Clyde-built quality of Govan will prove most

185WH
competitive. Shop stewards at the yard believe that a successful bid would guarantee work for the next five years and could increase the work force by 200. It could allow up to 20 apprentices to be taken on for the first time in three years.
In recent years, HMS Ocean was built in Govan, taking advantage of our commercial build methods and facilities. That amphibious helicopter carrier's primary role is to carry an embarked military force with support. Her secondary roles include afloat training, a limited anti-submarine warfare platform and a base for antiterrorist operations. HMS Ocean is a typically excellent example of the Clyde-built quality of Govan.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), in a previous life as Secretary of State for Defence, awarded two MOD contracts for auxiliary oilers to VSEL at Barrow, despite a strong bid from the then Kvaerner Govan. The second oiler has now been subcontracted to BAe Systems Govan. The first oiler remains at the new sister yard in Barrow, several months overdue at a yard renowned for its submarine work. The MOD has recently improved its use of the smart procurement scheme, which was launched in the strategic defence review. Savings can now be made without sacrificing the quality of work in present and future builds for the MOD by United Kingdom shipbuilders.
Without the ro-ro order, the Govan yard could again face closure next January. The competition for that contract will be strong. Among the shortlist of four bidders, the Dutch company Maersk is keen to use Cammell Laird on Tyneside. That facility was reopened recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but it is unlikely to be operational for well over a year. Understandably, my right hon. Friend is keen to see the return of shipbuilding to Tyneside whose shipbuilding tradition is second only to that on Clydeside.
I remain confident, however, that the yard in my constituency will meet the challenge of any competition and successfully secure such a vital order. The Govan shipyard has a reputation for high-quality work that is produced on time and to budget. With the active support of the Government on the British and world stage, Clydeside shipyards have a real future. I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government's continuing support for shipbuilding on the Clyde.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall not call the hon. Lady to speak. She has not informed me that she has received the permission of the hon. Member who initiated the debate to do so. She has not notified me of her wish to speak, nor am I sure that she has notified the Minister. Has the hon. Lady followed all those three traditions?
Mrs. Fyfe: No, I have not. However, in an earlier debate this morning, hon. Members were asked whether they wanted to speak. I did not realise that the rules were being applied so rigidly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must explain that the earlier debate was a long Adjournment debate, not a half-hour Adjournment debate for which the rules are different.
12.15 pm
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) on securing the Adjournment debate. It is a useful vehicle by which to raise an issue that affects his constituency in particular, but also one to bring attention to the wider subject of Clyde shipbuilding. I note with satisfaction the strong turnout of our Labour colleagues to the debate; it is a clear sign of the strength of feeling and interest of those who are committed to Clyde shipbuilding. However, I hope I shall not be considered ungracious. I note also that a Tory Member is present in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). She is very welcome—but no one else is.
My hon. Friend was good enough to recognise that, when I was Minister responsible for education and industry in the Scottish Office, I was able to demonstrate my commitment to Clyde shipbuilding in a practical way. As he rightly said, since 1997 there has been much evidence of the Government's commitment to the shipbuilding industry in general, and Clyde shipbuilding in particular, and to reversing any misguided thoughts about the industry being one that could be left to its own devices or that it was somehow part of an industrial past. It is very much part of our industrial future. The title of the debate "Shipbuilding on the Clyde" is certainly emotive; it carries with it images and memories of great achievements and huge work forces with legendary skills.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan said, for some 35 years about 60,000 people were employed building ships on the Clyde. Today, the work force is about one twentieth of that figure. Although the scale is different, the Labour Government strongly believe in Clyde shipbuilding as a modern industry with an important future. I know that Ministers in the Scottish Executive are of a similar disposition. At the instigation of the trade unions, I put in motion the establishment of a Scottish shipbuilding forum that is now chaired by the Scottish Executive. It will provide an on-going and valuable focal point for the sharing of information and the promotion of the interests of the entire industry.
There is nothing old-fashioned about shipbuilding. We have only to go to the yard in my hon. Friend's constituency to understand that fully. Today's industry is high-tech; it needs a strong skills base. Some of the skills may have changed, but modern computer skills are as important as some of the more traditional shipbuilding skills. Modern shipbuilding is also about delivering a quality product on time and to budget. On that basis, I have every confidence that "Clyde-built" can remain a hallmark of quality manufacturing throughout the 21st century.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was closely involved in securing a deal for Govan last year, following the decision by Kvaerner to pull out of shipbuilding. It is worth emphasising that Kvaerner's decision was not solely about Govan, but about shipbuilding as a whole. My right hon. Friend was impressed by the fact, which I know from my own

187WH
contact with the yard to be true, that the work force at Govan adapted superbly to change. They are flexible and fully aware of the current climate, which is recognised and welcomed by the new management at Govan—BAe Systems. We all recognise the modern reality that shipbuilding is a fiercely competitive global industry with many players in the market. The world shipbuilding industry is in a critical condition with capacity far exceeding demand for new vessels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned subsidies for shipbuilding in the far east, particularly Korea—a timely reminder of this long-standing problem. I can assure him that the Government share the industry's concern about unfair trade practices by Korea and other low-cost Asian shipbuilders. We are a leading advocate within the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of promoting effective international disciplines to deal with unfair trading practices.
At the timely November Industry Council, we achieved a successful conclusion whereby the Council agreed measures to combat Korean unfair trade practices. The Commission and member states have started to implement those measures. At the same time, we urged the industry to play its part in taking those actions forward. It is important that a clear World Trade Organisation anti-subsidy case against Korea was presented to the Commission, which is now working closely with the industry to establish whether there is enough evidence to lodge a complaint. We shall be keeping the pressure up ahead of the next bilateral talks between the Commission and Korea, which are scheduled for February. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend the Member for Govan that the Government recognise and are taking action to address the problems that he properly raised regarding Korea and other low-cost economies.
In my previous incarnation as Minister for Trade, I was firmly convinced that the best way to combat unfair trade practices was to establish international trade disciplines to which all must equally adhere. We have taken a leading role in advocating that both in the EU and the OECD. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned, we have been frustrated in our efforts because of the failure of the United States to ratify the 1994 OECD shipbuilding agreement. Nevertheless, we shall continue to pursue those objectives and my hon. Friend can rest assured of the Government's intention to pursue a fair deal and the proverbial level playing field.
The key for shipbuilding, as for other UK industries, is to become even more competitive. The Government formed the shipbuilding forum—on a UK basis as well as a Scottish one—to facilitate that process. It is currently implementing 40 recommendations, including enhanced support for the shipbuilding industry. The Department of Trade and Industry has agreed to allow an element of profit in shipbuilding intervention fund calculations, has extended the role of the shipbuilding intervention fund to conversion contracts and has extended access to several previously excluded yards. The home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme has been improved by allowing contracts offering pure cover and by allowing US dollar and euro financing. My hon.
188WH
Friend the Minister for Trade has expressed his determination to ensure that any outstanding forum recommendations are implemented.
The shipbuilding intervention fund, though helpful, has not delivered the improvements that it promised in the industry's competitiveness. We are monitoring the pressure around Europe to continue the current system of contract aid, such as the shipbuilding intervention fund, but we are not convinced that it is the best way forward. New shipbuilding regulations, which came into force last year, refocus support for the industry on measures that will improve its competitiveness. To that end, we shall pursue the new EU regulations. The net effect should be to give shipbuilding more focused support to guarantee that our shipbuilders are not disadvantaged. The key is to win orders in the globally competitive marketplace, which, as we all know, means delivering ships on time and to the quality that everyone expects from the Clyde and for which it is rightly famed.
For the larger United Kingdom shipbuilders such as Govan, winning orders means, as my hon. Friend said, being especially successful at winning Ministry of Defence contracts. He spoke about the roll-on, roll-off ferry contract, which I understand will be determined by July, and the preferred bidder is likely to be named in the spring. As he recognised, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the Govan yard last Friday to reinforce our political commitment to its future. I am delighted that the unions are at Westminster today, pressing the case with Baroness Symons at the Ministry of Defence, but the roll-on, roll-off ferry contract will be determined in accordance with the clear rules that the Ministry operates for contracts of that size and nature. It is only right that it is so, but I know that the Ministry will carefully consider every aspect of the bids.
The same applies to all the other contracts in the pipeline for the Ministry of Defence, such as coastal survey vessels, alternative landing support logistics, type 45 destroyers and a future aircraft carrier. Clyde yards will figure prominently, and there will be debates here and elsewhere in which their case will be forcefully made.
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the yard in his own constituency, as one would expect, but it is important to recognise the success of the yards at Fergusons, Ailsa and Yarrow at winning orders. We will give them our support in the future, as in the past. I emphasise that the Government believe in shipbuilding. We believe that the industry, especially in terms of its Scottish interests, was unnecessarily decimated during the mad-dog days of the 1980s when it was fashionable to write off industries as being sunset when all reality suggested that they should be maintained on strategic economic grounds to help secure our economic future.
I am grateful that the debate has allowed me the opportunity, on behalf of the Scotland Office and the Government, to salute those who work and have worked in shipbuilding on the Clyde. They have built ships in which we as Britons and, in some cases, Scots and Glaswegians, can take pride. They have also championed the rights of workers in a way that has left its mark on industrial relations to this day. I hope that the Government's industrial relations agenda, especially the right to trade union recognition which will soon be

189WH
introduced, can to some extent be regarded as a monument to the efforts of previous generations of shipyard workers on the Clyde. They worked for such objectives as well as for retaining their jobs and industry.
I shall reaffirm what I said at the outset. The Government recognise the importance of the Clyde's shipbuilding industry. We have done everything that we can to support it, and we will work closely with my hon. Friend, our friends in the trade union movement and the management of the yards to achieve the best outcome possible.

Telecommunication Masts
12.30 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: As we all know, the mobile telecommunications industry is booming. By next year, it is expected that the number of mobile telephone subscribers will exceed 20 million. By the end of the decade, that figure could be nearly doubled. I support that growth; it is part of the communications revolution that is helping to sustain our economy in a uniquely long growth cycle, as it has done in the United States of America. However, that massive and rapid growth has thrown up a series of questions about how it can be accommodated without spoiling the environment which it is our duty to protect and enhance before we pass it on to our heirs.
Health risks associated with microwave radiation remain a matter of controversy. Today, however, I want to focus on the visual environment. The establishment of unsightly masts, which support more than a third of telecommunication base stations, is growing at an alarming rate throughout the country. No one seems to know exactly how many masts there are. If my constituency is anything to go by, there must be more than 10,000, and we are promised a doubling of their number despite the present 98 per cent. coverage, due to capacity increase and new technology.
The masts are invariably eyesores; they are an awful imposition on the surrounding landscape. Time and again in my constituency, masts have been erected in places where their towering existence has had a serious impact on people's quiet enjoyment of their environment and the surrounding scenery. My case files attest to the fact that they have become a permanent blight on the lives of those who live nearby.
The planning regulations have promoted rapid development at the expense of environmental concerns. Regulations have been drafted to assist mobile telephone companies, but those regulations have been aggressively exploited in order to build new masts. In my constituency, the actions of Orange have been an exemplar of corporate insensitivity, as they have repeatedly overridden the strong objections of local residents and local councils.
Now that the networks are largely completed, the planning process must be rebalanced in favour of the environment rather than unimpeded commercial development. As the Minister knows, planning policy guidance 8 is central to the planning process. Such is the guidance given in PPG8 that, even if masts are subject to the planning process, the final result is nearly always in favour of development. That guidance must be rewritten. Other regulations, too, should be examined so that it is no longer acceptable for masts to be built willy-nilly in the green belt or in conservation areas. All new masts for base stations should be subject to full planning permission.
Everyone agrees that base stations attached to existing buildings and structures are preferable. The refusal of owners of suitable sites to host a base station should therefore be investigated more closely if it is likely to lead to a mast development. We should also ask whether the operators have offered a suitable fee to the potential base station host. That economic test should include not only the cost of the alternative to a mast, but

191WH
an allowance for the mast being an environmental offence, probably devaluing property and the quality of life of its neighbours for decades. If operators cannot satisfy the planning inspectorate that they have met those economic tests, permission for masts should be refused.
We must put in place every incentive to avoid mast development if other feasible technical solutions can be found. Masts should be the last option in a properly demonstrable sequential approach. Although I welcome the new mast database, information that I have gleaned from companies suggests that it is not yet working properly. With four networks, it is pathetic that only 30 per cent. of masts are shared. An average of one mast servicing two networks would be barely adequate. I asked the Director General of Telecommunications whether he intended to move to a robust target for mast sharing; I regret that his answer was no. I hope that he will think again before he issues his promised consultative document.
In making the case for tighter planning regulations for masts, I turn to an example in my constituency. Orange and Railtrack have abused the normal planning process in order to erect a 32m mast in a conservation area.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Yesterday, I had a meeting in the village of Glenboig in my constituency involving the company One 2 One. I experienced the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that there should be far more consultation with local people? In my constituency there was none.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, which demonstrates that the problem affects hundreds of constituencies where companies have not taken account of local concerns. Let me give a classic example.
Local residents and the local planning authority were eventually powerless to prevent the development of the 32m mast in a conservation area, as Railtrack was able to exploit the mast's exemption from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995—part 24 being applicable to telecommunications developments—for the eventual commercial benefit of Orange, in a pre-arranged strategy. In July 1997, Railtrack unilaterally erected a 32m mast—higher than the company required—on a railway embankment off Nutley lane in Reigate, claiming the benefit of permitted development rights. This dominated a residential area and the Somers road conservation area. A storm of local protest led to a number of my constituents—notably Susie Gamier, Jill Campbell, David Tinn, Anne and Gordon Forest and others too numerous to mention—becoming unhappily expert in mast matters as they led local protests against the mast. The local authority was deeply unimpressed by Railtrack's use of its power under the order. It formally
192WH
expressed deep disappointment, called the lack of notification to local residents "unacceptable" and was not convinced that a mast 32m high was required. The local authority concluded:
"Railtrack merely considered cost effectiveness and at no stage were the amenities of the locality or nearby residents taken into account."
Surprise, surprise! In March 1998 the local authority received an application from Orange to replace the Railtrack mast with a bigger, better—wider and more obtrusive—mast of its own. Had there been a commercial agreement that had influenced Railtrack's selection of the site and the erection and height of the mast and ancillary installation? Unfortunately for it, Orange's supporting statement to its application to replace the Railtrack mast is dated February 1997, six months before Railtrack put up its mast. That tells us the answer. Railtrack's actions in not invigilating Orange's plans for the replacement, which apparently formed part of a vital safety system, tell us what had gone on before the mast was put up.
The planning process then wound its predictable route. There was a further storm of local protest. Reigate and Banstead borough council refused Orange's application on the ground that the mast would be extremely prominent, and detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area and, in particular, the conservation area. The inevitable appeal to the Planning Inspectorate followed. The inspector conscientiously did his duty. He visited the site accompanied by representatives of the company and the local ward councillor, Councillor Ann Milton, who had been actively representing local people's concerns to the local authority.
Entirely predictably, the planning inspector gave permission for the mast in October last year. A key consideration in his conclusion in allowing Orange's appeal was the pre-existence of Railtrack's mast and the fact that it would allow mast sharing between Railtrack and Orange. The case is clear: Orange and Railtrack combined to defeat the intentions of the planning process towards a high mast in a conservation area. Railtrack's action was an abuse of its rights. It claimed it as a vital safety system, but then seemed remarkably disinterested in the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Orange's plans and failed to specify certain requested details with any clarity. Railtrack was not justified in claiming the benefit of permitted development rights but, to quote its own publicity material, this was a way to
"build on the partnerships we have development with some of the UK's major telecom companies to increase profitability."
Railtrack must now answer some questions, not least those put to it by Susie Gamier and Jill Campbell. What is the nature of the business and description of the business already developed, and about to be developed, with the telecom companies, utilising Railtrack's infrastructure? On how many occasions has Railtrack's use of permitted development rights been of advantage when selling access to its infrastructure? If Railtrack is not prepared to expose the nature of its relationship with the telecom companies, we are entitled to think that it is a racket, and the regulatory authorities should act accordingly in the public interest to withdraw and restrict Railtrack's rights.

193WH
That is not the only example of Orange's poor practice in my constituency. The code of best practice, introduced in 1996, regarding prior approval procedures for applied mast and tower development states:
"If the planning authority raises reasonable concerns and requests changes to the appearance, landscape of siting of the proposed installation, the operator will try to meet these requests where possible."
The code is intended to foster a co-operative approach, whereby the industry and its agents work closely together with local planning authorities and communities. Orange escaped from its legal obligations to accept minimal council requests to reduce the visual impact of a proposed mast at Shrimpsfield, Brighton road, Kingswood in an unseemly row over whether the council had met the 28-day deadline. We can see, therefore, how much respect Orange has for the opinion of local people. It is little surprise that the Gregorys, whose life has been blighted by the mast, report that the requested shrub cover is painfully thin and inadequate.
I recognise the efforts that have been made by other companies in recognition of the unsightliness of masts. For example, One 2 One has voluntarily ended its use of the 1995 order for future masts on greenfield sites when there is mast sharing. I have to admit my surprise that one company—Orange—seems to be the usual culprit in enraging local communities. When my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) learnt of this debate, he sent me a copy of his local paper, with the headline "Mast Fury". Again the culprit was Orange.
I largely accept the advice on the danger from radiation. However, on environmental grounds alone, the regulatory framework must be rebalanced now that operators have met the coverage targets set for them by the Government. A specific example is one that has arisen over a telecommunications mast in Banstead Woods in the Metropolitan green belt, which is an area of great landscape value, a site of special scientific interest and ancient woodland. However, for some reason, the woods are not classified as an area of outstanding natural beauty, even though they are certainly that. I hope that the Minister will agree with me and the Chipstead residents association that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 should be amended to give areas such as Banstead Woods the same protection as areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I also look forward to Oftel's consultative document on mast sharing, which will be published this year, but I am concerned that there will be an absence of target-setting by the regulator. Planning obligations to secure mast sharing should be strengthened, but local communities must be sure that other base station sites have been tried and that proper offers are made to the owners of such sites, who can prevent an unnecessary mast from being erected.
I hope that there will be greater co-operation between the cellular operators and others to minimise the need for more masts to be erected. The operators tell us that we can expect twice as many masts in the future. That is not acceptable. The Minister must use her powers to protect communities from the telecommunications operators and the privileges that they currently enjoy, and occasionally abuse. I hope that we shall hear of her intention to rebalance the regulatory framework in the direction that I have suggested.
194WH
12.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing this Adjournment debate and on giving the Chamber an opportunity to discuss this important matter, which exercises the minds of many hon. Members. I thank him, too, for his courtesy in giving me notice of some of the issues that he would raise. That was helpful in allowing me to respond as fully as I can.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the way in which the number of telecommunication masts has increased in the past few years. That is a reflection of the significant growth nationally in the mobile communication sector over the past 15 years. There are now 24 million subscribers in the UK. In other words, 40 per cent. of the population now have a mobile phone. That market is expected to continue to grow.
As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Government want to encourage and facilitate the roll-out of a modern national telecommunications network. We want to ensure that the public can enjoy the benefits that come from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of telecommunications services. An efficient and modern network brings a number of important social and economic benefits, helping, for example, to create a climate conducive to business development and providing ready access to different kinds of communications services in both rural and urban areas.
We accept the hon. Gentleman's argument: the drive to develop the telecommunications network with its attendant base stations, masts and antennae must be balanced with the Government's other priorities and commitments to the achievement of environmental objectives. That is not an easy balance, but we accept that a balancing needs to take place. Planning policy guidance for this form of development set out in PPG8 provides the framework. As we have made clear, we attach great importance to keeping to a minimum the environmental intrusion caused by the telecommunications network development. The land use planning system provides the tool for trying to strike that necesary balance.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot comment on the individual cases that he raises or any of the allegations that he makes about the motives and intentions of particular companies, but I can discuss the planning issues that are relevant in those cases. I hope that that will be helpful. The general planning arrangements are that larger telecommunications developments, such as masts higher than 15m, will require a fuller planning application. Relatively minor development is permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, referred to as the GPDO. Permitted development rights generally have been approved by the House and apply throughout England and Wales. Generally, they benefit a large number of bodies in both the public and the private sector including, for example, householders and statutory undertakers, as well as licensed telecommunications operators.
Part 24 of the order grants a range of permitted development rights for telecommunications code system operators who are licensed under the

195WH
Telecommunications Act 1984. Those rights allow operators to carry out specified development, subject to certain conditions and limitations, without the need to make a full planning application to the local planning authority. The GPDO approach incorporates essential environmental safeguards. I should emphasise that there are special provisions regarding the installation of any mast in key designated areas such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest. In those areas, the installation of any mast does not enjoy permitted development rights under those orders, but development is subject to a full planning application. That allows more detailed consideration of the different aspects, including the environmental aspects of the proposals.
The main safeguard under the GPDO is provided through the prior approval precedure and that gives the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the siting and appearance of telecommunications masts. We made important amendments to the procedure last year so that operators are now required to post a site notice to publicise a proposal to erect a ground-based mast, in order to provide the public with a clear opportunity to comment to the local planning authority on its siting and appearance. If the local authority considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on local amenities it can refuse approval, but authorities are advised to explore if possible the scope for modifying the siting or appearance to accommodate acceptable arrangements before doing so.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular the permitted development rights given separately to statutory undertakers. Permitted development rights enable statutory undertakers such as rail operators to carry out certain developments without making a planning application. Normally, it would be unreasonable to require statutory operators providing a service to the public to make a planning application for every essential development. Local authorities would be inundated with planning applications, and the efficiency of those operators would be needlessly compromised, with consumers having to bear the resulting costs. If Railtrack had to apply for planning permission every time that it needed to carry out essential safety, maintenance or enhancement work on the rail network, that would at the very least impose serious delays and at worst create unacceptable risks for rail customers.
Permitted development rights are important to the process of statutory operators fulfilling their duties to the public in the most efficient and cost-effective way, but that does not mean that Railtrack or any other statutory operator enjoying permitted development rights may do whatever it likes. For example, in relation to the exercise of such rights under part 17 of the GPDO, any development undertaken by the railway operator—including masts—on its operational land must be needed in connection with its operations: the movement of traffic by rail. It cannot exploit that power for non-railway-related purposes. Recent circulars from my Department provide guidance to the statutory operators on the use of permitted development rights, making it clear that local planning authorities should be informed of any proposal likely to have a significant effect on amenities or the environment.
196WH
The Department is aware of concerns about statutory operators' use of permitted development rights. A report on departmental research into the use of permitted development rights by statutory operators concluded that, in general, the system of permitted development rights is operating satisfactorily, but it made several recommendations for improvement, including arrangements for consultation with the public and local authorities, as mentioned by both the hon. Member for Reigate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).
In addition, the report identified several concerns in relation to rail operators, including the installation of communications masts; the impact of permitted development rights on light pollution; felling trackside trees; car parking at railway stations; and the scale and appearance of new buildings and structures. At the moment, we are considering whether to address those concerns by issuing new guidance and revising the GPDO. Members' views are therefore timely.
The hon. Member for Reigate was anxious about the number of telecommunications masts. We believe that it should be kept to an absolute minimum, consistent with the provision of an efficient national network. Our policy is that masts and sites should be shared, when appropriate, and we are taking steps to encourage that. Indeed, conditions attached to operating licences granted by the Secretary of State include a requirement to investigate mast sharing in the consequential manner requested by the hon. Gentleman before seeking to put up any new mast.
When the GPDO was changed last year, we issued new policy advice in a circular setting out our view that operators should give the local planning authority evidence of having considered the use of existing masts, buildings or other structures before seeking permission to erect any new mast, whatever its size. With evidence on the suitability of alternative sites, the operator can, at an early stage, discuss with the local planning authority whether a shared mast would be the preferable solution for a proposed development. Information from the radio sites databank that the mobile operators set up last year should help in those discussions. I accept the point that the databank needs to be more effective, but when it is, it will assist the identification of mast sharing opportunities and facilitate a strategic approach to the provision and siting of masts.
The Department has recently published a consultation paper on the rating of telecommunications masts that are shared by multiple operators. The growth of shared sites has caused uncertainty in their rates assessment. The proposals would remove that uncertainty by providing that shared mast sites receive only one rates bill, thus making it easier for operators to share masts. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Office of Telecommunications, Oftel, intends to issue a consultation document on mast sharing later this year. I understand why he wants that document to be as robust as possible—to maximise the potential for mast sharing.
As well as base station location, sympathetic design has a key role to play in minimising the impact of telecommunications development on the environment where it must take place. The Government are encouraging operators to work together to investigate

197WH
the use of new technologies, materials and designs that will allow masts better to complement their surroundings.
The range of approaches that different companies have adopted shows that there is no such thing as a universally acceptable design solution, not least because good design is a subjective concept, but there remains an important place for some simple measures, such as early consideration in the development process of the use of planting and landscaping to help to screen the impact of developments in a local environment.
Careful consideration of the siting and design of a development should ensure that the right equipment is put in the right place. How to arrive at that solution is a further strand in striking the right balance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, between network roll-out and protecting the environment. The Government firmly believe that telecommunications development is best advanced through the adoption of an effective partnership approach. I know that that is a hackneyed term, but I have not found another. Such an approach would involve operators, local authorities and, through them, local communities in a meaningful way. I fully accept the points that the hon. Gentleman made about that, and we want that part of the consultation arrangements to be strengthened. The code of best
198WH
practice on prior approval procedures for mast development, published by the Department, underpins such a co-operative approach. A working party representing local government and the telecommunications industry drafted the code, which is now being updated.
I have outlined the different policies and initiatives that we are implementing to strike the right balance between network roll-out and the protection of the environment, and to achieve better use of existing sites, masts, buildings and other structures for locating antennas. The research recommendations on the statutory undertaker's permitted development rights, to which I have referred, will help us to address the various concerns.
The hon. Gentleman referred to many of those concerns, including the installation of telecommunications masts and their relationship to permitted development rights. We hope that the different parties will work together to achieve that balance. I am grateful to him for raising those issues—especially as it was timely to do so in the light of our considerations—and for his contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Aircraft Incidents (Heathrow)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the incidents involving objects falling from aircraft landing or taking off from Heathrow in the last five years. [104633]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the last five years, the Civil Aviation Authority has received 62 reports of objects landing in the London area, which are presumed to have fallen from aircraft using Heathrow airport. Forty of these reports involved ice, 21 involved aircraft parts or related objects such as tools and one involved the body of a stowaway.

  Airport Traffic
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in order of the number of their air traffic movements for the last five years all airports where cover is provided other than by National Air Traffic Services, stating the numbers of passengers using those airports in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [104627]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following list details passenger traffic for 1996–98 (1999 not yet available), through the major UK airports which do not have air traffic control provided by National Air Traffic Services. The airports are listed in order of their air traffic movements over the last five years, which include both commercial and non-commercial movements.

  Air traffic and passenger data for UK airports which do not have air traffic control provided by National Air Traffic Services

  Passenger traffic (thousand)

  UK airports without NATS ATC provision1

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Bournemouth

  162

  265

  313

  Biggin Hill

  6

  7

  7

  Liverpool

  620

  682

  869

  Jersey

  1,645

  1,687

  1,694

  Gloucestershire

  2

  2

  2

  Newcastle

  2,433

  2,592

  2,920

  Shoreham

  3

  3

  2

  East Midlands

  1,822

  1,878

  2,136

  Prestwick

  522

  567

  558

  Cambridge

  29

  20

  17

  Teeside

  444

  557

  651

  Guernsey

  846

  871

  890

  Luton

  2,411

  3,221

  4,116

  Coventry

  3

  2

  3

  Bristol

  1,394

  1,586

  1,814

  Southend

  551

  618

  725

  Leeds/Bradford

  1,053

  1,247

  1,398

  Southampton

  551

  618

  725

  Norwich

  258

  264

  318

  Blackpool

  85

  83

  94

  Exeter

  205

  213

  241

  356W

  Air traffic and passenger data for UK airports which do not have air traffic control provided by National Air Traffic Services

  Passenger traffic (thousand)

  UK airports without NATS ATC provision1

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Belfast City

  1,361

  1,282

  1,314

  Dundee

  13

  16

  9

  Isle of Man

  605

  677

  701

  Humberside

  279

  332

  344

  Plymouth

  98

  103

  110

  Carlisle

  1

  1

  1

  Lydd

  —

  3

  2

  Inverness

  285

  379

  324

  Sumburgh

  401

  345

  287

  Kent International

  2

  3

  2

  Alderney

  84

  81

  77

  Isles of Scilly—St Mary's

  125

  128

  132

  Londonderry

  64

  56

  49

  Kirkwall

  92

  89

  83

  Stornaway

  94

  96

  96

  Penzance Heliport

  106

  109

  120

  Wick

  28

  25

  23

  Scatsta

  79

  102

  104

  Sheffield City

  —

  —

  47

  1 Listed in decreasing order of air traffic movements

  Notes:

  1. Air Traffic Movements include both commercial and non-commercial movements

  2. Passenger traffic figures are collated in calender years. The 1999 figures are not yet available.

  3. Sheffield City began reporting passenger figures in June 1997.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 539W, on National Air Traffic Services, when he expects to be able to offer a detailed list of all property (a) leased and (b) owned by NATS, with a valuation and a list of sites. [104668]

  Mr. Mullin
  A list of properties which are leased or owned by National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is being put together as part of the due diligence exercise for the NATS public-private partnership. A valuation will be produced for the key sites which are owned by NATS. This work is currently scheduled for completion in late Spring 2000.

  Underground Storage Tanks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals are being considered to oblige owners of sub-standard underground storage tanks to replace them, line them or retrofit cathodic protection. [104635]

  Mr. Meacher
  Existing health and safety legislation requires all employers to assess the risks from their work activities. Where the result of the assessment indicates that storage tanks may be sub-standard, the employer should select the most suitable remedial measure to reduce the risk of a leak. Suitable measures for underground petrol storage tanks include replacement, taking the tank out of use, lining the tank, or fitting cathodic protection.
  357W
  Petroleum Licensing Officers may specifically require the above matters as part of a petrol licence if they consider this is appropriate.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to require underground storage tank owners to measure the risk of corrosion failure. [104637]

  Mr. Meacher
  Employers are required to assess the risks to people's heath and safety in the event of a leak from an underground storage tank, and the likelihood of a tank corroding is one of the factors that should be taken into account in the assessment.

  The Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance on the need to provide corrosion protection where appropriate and it is included in recently published industry guidance as one of the methods to manage the risk of a leak. Measuring the actual degree of corrosion is technically difficult and can be hazardous to the workers involved. For these reasons HSE would advocate leak protection and detection methods.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the reliability of tightness testing with regard to underground storage tanks. [104639]

  Mr. Meacher
  Tightness testing is one of a number of options available to employers to check the integrity of a new underground storage tank or to confirm a suspected leak in an existing tank. No recent representations have been received on the reliability of tightness testing.

  Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the replacement of petroleum licensing by a safety regime for petrol stations. [104636]

  Mr. Meacher
  No recent representations have been received on replacement of petroleum licensing.

  The existing petrol licensing scheme, provided for under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, is currently being reviewed by the Health and Safety Commission as part of a project to implement the EU Chemical Agents Directive. Particular consideration is being given to safety controls at petrol stations and the continuing need for a permissioning regime. Discussions to date have included the Petrol Retailers' Association, the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association, the Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents and the TUC. The Health and Safety Commission plans to consult on proposals for new legislation to implement the Directive in the autumn.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information was conveyed by the Minister for the Environment at the board meeting of the Environment 358W
  Agency, held on 15 December 1999; and what matters raised at the meeting have been acted upon by his Department. [104700]

  Mr. Meacher
  I attended part of the December Board meeting. I participated in discussions on the Chief Executive's update on key issues. A summary of the meeting, including my comments, is on the Agency's web site, www.environment-agency.gov.uk. There was no direct action for my Department resulting from my attendance.

  Biggin Hill
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the powers of(a) his Department and (b) other statutory bodies in respect of applications to provide scheduled and charter aircraft services at Biggin Hill Airfield, Kent. [104851]

  Mr. Mullin
  Biggin Hill Airport Ltd. presented a development strategy for Biggin Hill airfield to Bromley Borough Council in November 1999. No planning application has been received by the Council.

  Depending on the circumstances and size of a proposed development, some or all of the following may be required in order to provide aircraft services: planning permission following the completion of an environmental impact assessment, the granting of a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) operators safety licence, and permission by the CAA to levy airport charges.

  In most cases planning permission for proposed developments would be decided by the relevant local planning authority. However, the Secretary of State has the reserve power to call in a planning application if issues of more than local importance are involved.

  French Hauliers
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the obligations of the French Government under EU law in relation to free trade within France and the action it has taken to fulfil these obligations in respect of the dispute by French hauliers. [105007]

  Mr. Hill
  Council Regulation (EC) 2679/98 requires member states to take all necessary and proportionate measures in order to facilitate the free movement of goods on their territories. Such measures must not, however, affect the exercise of fundamental rights, including the right or freedom to strike. The blockades, which were set up in France on 10 January, were removed on 12 January.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the(a) French Government and (b) European Commission, regarding the dispute by French hauliers; and if he will make a statement. [105006]
  359W
  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport wrote to the French Transport Minister on Tuesday 11 January to express our concern that yet again British hauliers were being prevented from going about their lawful business by a domestic dispute in France. My right hon. and noble Friend also sought assurances that the French Government would ensure the safety and well being of any British lorry drivers caught up in the dispute, and would act quickly to restore the free movement of goods. The letter was copied to the European Commission.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates the Government have received of the cost to British companies of the French hauliers' dispute; and if he will make a statement. [105012]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost to British business of the latest road blockade in France. [105265]

  Mr. Hill
  Regrettably, a number of companies and individuals will have incurred financial loss and suffered delay and general inconvenience as a result of the dispute in France. The Government have received no estimates of these overall costs and have no means of assessing what they might be.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has discussed with the French Government the issue of compensation for British lorry drivers whose livelihoods are affected by the French hauliers' dispute. [105008]

  Mr. Hill
  It is a cause for concern that, yet again, British hauliers have suffered financially as a result of a domestic dispute in France. However, as the French Government gave notice of this dispute on Friday 7 January, any hauliers who subsequently chose to travel to France and were then blockaded there are unlikely to be eligible for compensation under the relevant French law. Similarly, vehicles that were delayed outside French territory would not be eligible for compensation under French legislation.

  Lorry Netting
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent representations he has received regarding the use of netting to secure scrap metal carried in open-top lorries; [105141]

  (2) what recent guidance he has issued to road haulage companies regarding the securing of scrap metal carried in lorries. [105142]

  Mr. Hill
  There have been no representations regarding the use of netting to secure scrap metal carried in open top lorries.
  360W
  Sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 require any load carried by a vehicle to be secured at all times and if necessary by physical restraints. To support this my Department issues a Code of Practice on the Safety of Loads on Goods Vehicles, which advises on the best practices for securing loads. This Code is widely used throughout the road haulage industry.

  Waste Disposal (London)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of waste from London boroughs in 1998 was disposed of outside the area of the former Greater London Council. [105326]

  Mr. Mullin
  It is for each individual Waste Disposal Authority in London to make its own arrangements for the disposal of municipal waste arising in its area. My Department does not seek or keep information on where that waste is disposed.

  Capital Receipts (Stoke)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources have been made available to Stoke-on-Trent City Council under the housing capital receipts policy in each year since its inception, including amounts agreed for 2000–01. [105156]

  Mr. Mullin
  The allocations made to Stoke-on-Trent City Council under the Capital Receipts Initiative (CRI) were as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  907,000

  1998–99

  3,141,000

  1999–2000

  2,894,000

  There is no separate CRI allocation for 2000–01 as the resources for the CRI, and for support for private sector renovation grants, have been included within the main housing allocation. This has been done to provide authorities with more flexibility over the use of capital resources and to reduce the administrative burdens of operating the three separate funding streams.

  Stoke-on-Trent's main housing allocation for 2000–01 is £11.7 million, 49 per cent. more than its equivalent allocation (including CRI and private sector renovation) for 1999–2000 (£7.8 million).

  Ambleside Bypass
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the proposed Ambleside bypass. [105224]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have no plans for an Ambleside bypass.

  Driving Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2000,Official Report, column 213W, on driving agencies, when the Audit Commission report on the DVLA and the DSA will be published. [105644]

  Mr. Hill
  I now understand that the Public Services Productivity Panel intend to publish this report on 27 January.

  Conservation Funding
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to provide enhanced funding for the management and conservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty. [105291]

  Mr. Mullin
  Funding for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) has already been increased this year by allocating an additional £2.5 million to the Countryside Agency to be spent on the management and conservation of designated AONBs. This is more than double the amount previously available. This increased funding will be carried through into the next year, to be supplemented by a further £1 million, bringing the countryside Agency's budget for AONBs in 2000–01 to £5.7 million.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment expects to make an announcement soon on other measures to strengthen the protection and management of designated AONBs.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the cost to the economy of road congestion in each of the last 10 years. [105696]

  Mr. Hill
  No complete and consistent set of estimates has, to my knowledge, been compiled. A number of estimates have been made of the value road users place on the extra journey times caused by congestion, for different years and using different methods. They agree that this runs to billions of pounds every year, and has been rising. These estimates do not, though, take into account the very considerable costs of providing congestion-free conditions. We will be examining the economic implications as part of the follow-up to our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published today.

  Housing
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total amount of money that local authorities were allowed to spend on(a) housing repairs and (b) new build for each of the past 10 years. [105230]

  Mr. Mullin
  The size and composition of local authorities' housing capital programmes is for them to decide in the light of the resources available (from their own resources and in allocations from central Government)362W
  and their assessment of expenditure priorities. Registered social landlords (RSLs) are now the main providers of new social housing as they can, through the use of private finance, deliver higher levels of outputs. RSL new build is supported through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) as well as by grants from local authorities. Details of central Government allocations to support English local authorities housing capital programmes, a substantial proportion of which goes on renovation of council housing, and the ADP over the past 10 years (in £ million) are as set out.

  Local authority housing capital1

  ADP2

  1991–92

  1,682

  1,732

  1992–93

  1,593

  2,369

  1993–94

  1,434

  1,843

  1994–95

  1,220

  1,530

  1995–96

  1,147

  1,183

  1996–97

  1,059

  1,068

  1997–98

  925

  702

  1998–99

  1,210

  621

  1999–2000

  1,252

  643

  2000–01

  1,891

  674

  1 Excludes allocations for area based regeneration work delivered through the Single Regeneration Budget and Estate Action and the allowance for expenditure assumed to be financed from receipts included in the allocations for individual authorities.

  2 Gross expenditure, including support for rough sleepers and City Challenge.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority/private partnerships there are in the rented sector, other than housing association partnerships; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness. [105226]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information is not available on how many local authority/private partnerships there are for the provision of housing services in the rented sector. However, eight local authorities in England are piloting arrangements with the private sector for the refurbishment and management of housing stock via the Private Finance Initiative. We will be monitoring the effectiveness of these arrangements as they progress.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total number of houses in multiple occupation in use in each of the past 10 years. [105229]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are a number of different types of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). The main information on the numbers of HMOs for England are the English House Condition Survey (which is carried out every five years, the last two surveys being conducted in 1991 and 1996) and the Census (1991). There are no reliable sources of information for the intervening years.

  The table provides best estimates for different types of HMOs. This shows a small decline in the number of HMOs from 1991 to 1996. For traditional and purpose built HMOs and converted flats, the building contains more than one accommodation unit and can therefore be fully or partially occupied. This is reflected in the difference between the number of accommodation units provided and the number of households in occupation for these categories of HMO.
  363W

  Buildings, units of accommodation and households in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in England (all tenures) by given type of HMO, 1991 and 1996

  Thousand

  1991

  1996

  Buildings

  Accommodation units

  Households

  Buildings

  Accommodation units

  Households

  Traditional HMOs (bedsits)

  75

  337

  313

  64

  251

  195

  Shared houses and flats

  220

  220

  220

  201

  201

  201

  Households with lodgers

  213

  213

  213

  203

  203

  203

  Purpose built HMOs

  2

  51

  50

  4

  49

  35

  Converted flats

  250

  1,028

  956

  232

  812

  754

  Total

  760

  1,849

  1,752

  704

  1,516

  1,388

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude hostels, guest houses, boarding houses and bed and breakfast accommodation. Information for this type of HMO is available only from the 1991 Census which reported 45,000 buildings providing 274,000 units of accommodation under this category.

  2. There are slight variations between the statistics quoted above and the figures published in the 1996 English House Condition Survey report. This is because of minor modifications made to improve the EHCS database since publication. The modifications do not affect any of the patterns, findings or conclusions contained in the report.

  3. There is a margin of error involved in the estimates arising from the sample nature of the English House Condition Survey and from the complexities of classifying some types of HMO from information obtained through the Census.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total number of council houses available for rent in each of the past 10 years. [105227]

  Mr. Mullin
  The number of local authority-owned properties which were tenanted, or available for letting, in England since 1990 is as follows:

  Year

  Dwellings (million)

  1990

  3.990

  1991

  3.859

  1992

  3.810

  1993

  3.729

  1994

  3.637

  1995

  3.534

  1996

  3.438

  1997

  3.369

  1998

  3.277

  1999

  3.142

  Source:

  DETR Annual Housing Investment Programme returns

  Bus Services
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of funding for rural bus subsidies in each of the last 10 years. [105698]

  Mr. Hill
  No funding was specifically provided for the subsidy of rural bus services during the period 1989–90 to 1997–98, apart from £4 million in 1989–90 and £1 million in 1990–91 of residual spending on the transitional rural bus grant scheme under the Transport Act 1985.

  New funding for the support of rural buses was introduced by this Government in 1998–99. In that year my Department paid a total of £25.7 million to English local authorities under the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and Rural Bus Challenge schemes. I understand that allocations by the Welsh Office in 1998–99 to Welsh local authorities under the Bus Partnership Fund totalled £2.25 million.
  364W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus passenger journeys there were in each of the last 10 years. [105697]

  Mr. Hill
  The figures up to 1998–99 are taken from table 2 of the Transport Statistics Bulletin, "A Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics: Great Britain 1999". Local bus passenger journeys made in Great Britain over the last decade are as summarised.

  Local bus services: passenger journeys

  Millions

  1989–90

  5,068

  1990–91

  4,844

  1991–92

  4,660

  1992–93

  4,475

  1993–94

  4,380

  1994–95

  4,415

  1995–96

  4,378

  1996–97

  4,345

  1997–98

  4,325

  1998–99

  4,243

  Protection of Conservation Areas
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he intends to take to ensure sites submitted to the European Commission as candidate special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive are given appropriate protection during delays in the adoption of such sites. [105976]

  Mr. Meacher
  I intend to bring forward Regulations which will extend the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 to candidate Special Areas of Conservation in England as soon as practicable. I am proposing to give these sites the same level of protection as would be available on sites which become Sites of Community Interest or is already available to sites classified as Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive. This enhanced protection will ensure that the integrity of sites we have proposed as
  365W
  candidate Special Areas of Conservation is not adversely affected by, for example, damaging operations prior to their adoption by Europe.

  Policy for such matters falls within the responsibilities of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government's first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. [106040]

  Mr. Hill
  We have today laid before the House "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", our first report under this Act.

  We agree with the Commission for Integrated Transport that we should not set a national road traffic reduction target. The national volume of road traffic is not a good measure of our success in improving the outcomes that matter, particularly congestion and pollution. Targets for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, health and road safety are already in place or are shortly to be published. The report invites views on our proposal to develop new benchmarks and targets for congestion for different area or road types.

  With widespread support from local authorities, businesses and the general public for the policies in the Integrated Transport White Paper and Transport Bill, we can also tackle congestion. The report shows that it should be possible to reduce congestion over the next decade, even when national traffic levels are rising.

  The report shows that we can expect to see a reduction of more than half in the effect of traffic pollution on air quality over the next decade, mainly through better designed cars and fuels. We can also reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from road transport, though only to slightly below 1990 levels.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the police authorities of England and Wales in order of their Band D council tax precept. [105181]

  Ms Bevcrley Hughes
  The information requested on Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The information requested for England is shown in the following table.

  Band D council tax precepts issued by English police authorities in 1999–2000

  Police authority

  £

  Metropolitan

  83

  Lincolnshire

  82

  Staffordshire

  79

  Cumbria

  78

  Merseyside

  77

  Dorset

  77

  Northamptonshire

  76

  Surrey

  75

  Warwickshire

  71

  Wiltshire

  69

  366W

  Band D council tax precepts issued by English police authorities in 1999–2000

  Police authority

  £

  Gloucestershire

  69

  Derbyshire

  66

  Essex

  65

  Norfolk

  64

  Leicestershire

  64

  Hertfordshire

  64

  Cleveland

  63

  Nottinghamshire

  62

  Bedfordshire

  61

  Avon and Somerset

  61

  Greater Manchester

  60

  West Mercia

  59

  Lancashire

  58

  South Yorkshire

  57

  Thames Valley

  57

  Cheshire

  56

  Suffolk

  56

  Humberside

  55

  West Yorkshire

  55

  Hampshire

  54

  Devon and Cornwall

  54

  Sussex

  53

  Kent

  52

  North Yorkshire

  52

  Cambridgeshire

  52

  West Midlands

  51

  Durham

  50

  Northumbria

  50

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Millennium Celebrations (Drug and Drink Offences)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made in central London during the millennium celebrations for suspected offences involving(a) alcohol, (b) heroin and (c) cannabis. [104916]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that during the central London millennium celebrations the numbers of arrests for suspected offences were:(a) alcohol, 43; (b) heroin, nil; and, (c) cannabis, five.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 21 September, 25 October and 9 December 1999 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Aftab Ahmed Butt. [105559]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am sorry my right hon. Friend has not received a reply to his letters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to my right hon. Friend today.

  Mike Tyson
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the extent of potential financial hardship to British businesses and individuals of Mr. Mike Tyson not being granted entry to the United Kingdom; and what influence this had on his decision in this case. [105719]
  367W
  Mr. Straw
  In reaching my decision about Mr. Tyson's application for entry to take part in a sporting contest in Manchester on 29 January I had regard not merely to the financial loss which might ensue for a number of companies and individuals should Mr. Tyson be refused entry, but also to the potentially ruinous consequences of such losses to smaller concerns in particular, all of whom had acted in good faith in the expectation that the contest would take place. Together with the general effect on business in the Manchester area and the inconvenience and disappointment of the many thousands who had bought tickets for the promotion this was a significant consideration in reaching my decision.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received, and from whom, about the case of Mr. Mike Tyson. [105716]

  Mr. Straw
  Following a letter from the United Kingdom Immigration Service dated 11 January, Mr. Frank Warren, promoter of the sporting event, made representations about the entry of Mr. Tyson. These representations enclosed others from various companies and individuals with a direct or indirect interest in the promotion. In addition, representations and comments from a number of sources have been received at the Home Office. These are being registered and will receive a reply in due course.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the grounds which influenced his decision in the case of Mr. Mike Tyson. [105713]

  Mr. Straw
  In the special circumstances of Mr. Tyson's case I considered that it would have been invidious for an individual immigration officer to have to weigh the competing considerations involved. I therefore decided, having carefully examined the representations submitted by Mr. Frank Warren, promoter of the sporting event, to issue an instruction to the Immigration Service that Mr. Tyson should be granted leave to enter until 30 January 2000 for the purpose of taking part in the scheduled contest.

  I considered that there were exceptional circumstances which justified my decision. In particular I was mindful of the evidence of the likely effects on the small providers of ancillary services, some of which might have faced bankruptcy, had the promotion been cancelled as a consequence of Mr. Tyson being refused entry. I also had regard to the effect of cancellation on business in the Manchester area and to the great inconvenience and disappointment which many thousands of boxing fans who had purchased tickets would experience.

  I weighed these factors against the nature and seriousness of Mr. Tyson's convictions, and I decided on balance that the exceptional circumstances of this case were such that Mr. Tyson should be granted leave to enter for the purpose of the match. This decision was entirely consistent with the Immigration Rules.

  In reaching my decision I also took into account the fact that in practice the Immigration Rule relating to refusal of entry on the ground of criminal convictions had not been applied consistently in the past. This Rule and the way in which it is applied will now be reviewed.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he gave to the Immigration Service about the case of Mr. Mike Tyson. [105717]
  368W
  Mr. Straw
  Generally the decision as to whether a person is or is not given leave to enter the United Kingdom is one for the immigration officer to take, considering any relevant representations and advice. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has the power under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to give instructions to immigration officers. Once the content and sweep of the representations about Mr. Tyson's entry were known I decided that it would be invidious for the decision to be made by an individual immigration officer and that it was appropriate to give instructions on this particular case given its high profile and complexity. After careful consideration I instructed the Immigration Service to admit Mr. Tyson for the purpose of taking part in the sporting contest at Manchester on 29 January.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that Sinn Fein complies with rules relating to the funding of political parties from overseas sources; and if he will make a statement. [105360]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In its report on the Funding of Political Parties, the Neill Committee recommended some adjustment for Northern Ireland parties, on a temporary basis, from the provisions on party funding which it recommended should be put in place. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which is designed to implement the Neill Committee's report, would accordingly allow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make such provision by Order. Consideration is being given to precisely what form the adjustment would take.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms certificates were revoked in each of the last five years and in the current year in each police force area; and of these how many were revoked on the grounds of no good reason to possess the firearms in question. [105818]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Firearms licensing statistics for England and Wales are published annually in Home Office statistical bulletins, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The most recent bulletin (Issue 22–99) relates to the year 1998 and was published on 26 November 1999.

  Although the statistics give details of the number of revocations in each force, no information is collected centrally about the grounds for this action.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the requirement for a national database under Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and who is responsible for the implementation of that Section of the Act. [105817]
  369W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 does not specify the person or organisation which is to provide the central register referred to in section 39. It is being developed as part of the PHOENIX database of the Police National Computer, which is maintained by the Police Information Technology Organisation. As a next step a detailed impact assessment is to be carried out of the work which needs to be done to link the Police National Computer to existing firearms systems in forces. This is expected to be completed in April.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each police force in England and Wales, if he will list the systems used to hold the register of privately held firearms and persons holding firearms certificates, naming each electronic system concerned; and if he will place a copy of the functional specification and user guide of each such electronic system in the Library. [105824]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that most forces use or have purchased either the ORBIS system or the SHOGUN system, as set out:

  Forces using ORBIS

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Dyfed-Powys

  Essex

  Gwent

  Hampshire

  Kent

  Lincolnshire

  Metropolitan

  North Wales

  Northamptonshire

  Northumbria

  Nottinghamshire

  South Wales

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Thames Valley

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  Forces using SHOGUN

  Avon and Somerset

  Derbyshire

  Devon and Cornwall

  Durham

  Gloucestershire

  Greater Manchester

  Hertfordshire

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Merseyside

  North Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire

  370W
  Forces using other systems

  City of London

  Cumbria

  Dorset

  Humberside

  Norfolk

  West Mercia.

  The functional specifications and user guides are not held centrally.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons held(a) certificates relating to the holding of (i) firearms, (ii) shotguns and (iii) explosives and (b) dealer certificates at the latest date for which figures are available. [105821]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most recent year for which firearm certificate statistics for England and Wales are available is 1998. At the end of that year, 131,900 firearm certificates and 627,000 shotgun certificates were on issue, and 2,180 persons were registered as firearms dealers.

  The most recent figures for explosive certificates for England and Wales relate to 1997. At the end of that year, a total of 6,794 certificates relating to the acquisition and keeping of explosives, and a further 2,432 relating to their acquisition only, were in force.

  Local Crime Partnerships
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of local crime partnerships in England and Wales. [105705]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The crime and disorder reduction partnerships brought into being by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act published their strategies on 1 April 1999 and are currently implementing them. We recently published a national crime reduction strategy which includes measures to support partnerships and develop their effectiveness so that they can fulfil their potential.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent from public funds on CCTV in each of the past 10 years; and what plans he has for spending on CCTV in each of the next three years. [105707]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative, the Government are investing £153 million over three years on public area CCTV systems in England and Wales. We have already allocated nearly £40 million for 218 schemes and anticipate that expenditure under the first round could reach £64 million. The balance of the available £153 million will be allocated in years two and three of the Initiative.
  371W
  From 1994 to 1999, a total of £38.5 million was spent under the Home Office CCTV Challenge Competition, as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  Round 1

  1994–95

  5

  Round 2

  1996–97

  17

  Round 3

  1997–98

  15

  Round 4

  1998–99

  1.5

  Crime prevention measures funded under the earlier Safe Cities Programme and the Single Regeneration Budget may have included elements of CCTV, but these are not separately identifiable.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the funding for Victim Support in each of the last 10 years; and what plans he has for its funding in each of the next three years. [105709]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office grant to Victim Support for the last ten years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Grant

  1990–91

  4.7

  1991–92

  5.7

  1992–93

  7.3

  1993–94

  8.4

  1994–95

  10.0

  1995–96

  10.8

  1996–97

  11.7

  1997–98

  12.7

  1998–99

  12.7

  1999–2000

  17.3

  Following the last Comprehensive Spending Review grant for 2000–01 was set at £18.3 million and for 2001–02 at £19.0 million. Grant for 2001–02 and beyond is currently being reviewed in the current spending review.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals have been electronically tagged in each year since the introduction of tagging; and if he will make a statement. [105710]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1999, a total of 18,049 persons were subject to electronic monitoring. The great majority of these (15,320) were prisoners released on Home Detention Curfew under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Information is not available in the form requested in earlier years. The available information for the period from July 1995, when trials of curfew orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 began, to the end of 1998 is set out in the table.
  372W

  Description/period

  Number monitored

  Curfew order under the Criminal Justice Act 1991

  July 1995-June 1996

  83

  July 1996-June 1997

  375

  July 1997-December 1998

  1—

  Curfew order under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997

  1998

  232

  Bail cases

  1998

  72

  1 Not available

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes were reported and how many convictions there were for violent crime in each of the past 10 years. [105701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The figures available cover the ten years to 1998 and relate to violent notifiable offences recorded by the police, and to persons convicted of violent indictable offences, and are as follows:

  England and Wales

  Notifiable violent offences recorded by the police1

  Persons convicted of violent offences2

  1989

  239,858

  67,475

  1990

  249,904

  63,909

  1991

  265,085

  57,517

  1992

  284,199

  53,601

  1993

  294,231

  48,298

  1994

  310,332

  47,009

  1995

  310,936

  38,977

  1996

  344,768

  40,345

  1997

  347,064

  44,674

  1998

  3331,843

  47,159

  1 Violent crime comprises the offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. Figures for persons convicted are not directly comparable with recorded crime figures, as they relate to individuals found guilty, rather than offences.

  2 Covers offences within the indictable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  3 Estimate of the total for the year ending March 1999 using the coverage and the counting rules used up to March 1998. New counting rules were introduced on 1 April 1998.

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Burglary
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent from public funds on measures to combat burglary in each of the last 10 years; and what plans he has for such spending in each of the next three years. [105706]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of individual police force expenditure in England and Wales on measures to combat burglary are not held centrally. However, burglary is one of the key strategic objectives of most of the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Centrally, of the £250 million budget for the Crime Reduction Programme, which runs from 1999–2000 to 2001–02, £62 million has been allocated to the Reducing Burglary Initiative. This Initiative supports projects undertaken by the Partnerships
  373W
  which apply a range of anti-burglary measures. These projects are to be evaluated to identify what works and where, most cost-effectively.

  So far, £4 million has been committed under the Initiative on the first 63 projects now under way. The balance will be allocated over the remaining two years of the Initiative with up to 200 round two projects beginning in March.

  Police Manpower
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to encourage police authorities to increase the civilian staff of police forces in order to release more police officers for operational duties; and if he will make a statement. [105422]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Staffing levels in a police force, whether police officers or civilians, are a matter for the police authority and chief officer to determine. It is my policy to encourage authorities and chief officers to make efficient and effective use of staff resources.

  Police authorities have been required to plan and deliver efficiency gains of 2 per cent. year on year between 1999–2002. Efficiency gains totalling £440 million will be redeployed to support front-line policing. Civilianisation of non-operational posts can play a key role in releasing resources for operational work.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he took the decision to ask for a medical report on General Pinochet. [105712]

  Mr. Straw
  I took the decision on 4 November 1999.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply the Spanish judicial authorities with a copy of the medical report carried out on General Pinochet. [105718]

  Mr. Straw
  Senator Pinochet consented to the medical examination on the express basis that none of its contents were disclosed to anyone other than his legal representatives, to me and my advisers, and to the Law Officers and Director of Public Prosecutions. Senator Pinochet has been asked to agree to Spain and the other countries with an outstanding extradition request being provided with a copy of the medical report. He has declined to do so.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting him to make public the medical report on General Pinochet; and if he will make a statement. [105711]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received a number of representations asking me to make public the medical report on Senator Pinochet. I will make a full statement on the case when it is finally concluded.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Chilean authorities requested a medical report on General Pinochet; to whom the request was made; and if he will make a statement. [105714]
  374W
  Mr. Straw
  On 14 October 1999, representations were submitted by the Chilean Embassy to me, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, attaching recent medical reports on Senator Pinochet. They suggested that there had been a recent and significant deterioration in his medical condition.

  I have a clear legal duty to operate the Extradition Act 1989 properly. In the light of the information from the Chilean Embassy, that duty included informing myself of the true facts about Senator Pinochet's health. I therefore asked him to undergo a thorough and extensive medical examination, to be undertaken by an independent team of clinicians.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he can require from local authorities about the composition of their work forces in terms of(a) standard age groups, (b) ethnic origins and (c) gender. [104013]

  Dr. Reid
  I do not collect figures from local authorities on the detailed composition of their work forces. In some cases, other UK Ministers may seek information direct from Scottish local authorities in areas reserved to the UK Parliament, although this information is unlikely to cover detailed composition of their work forces either. Any collection of information about local authorities' work in areas of devolved competence would be a matter for the Scottish Executive. It is, of course, for local authorities themselves, as independent corporate bodies, to ensure that they comply with employment law, including equal opportunity requirements.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons held(a) certificates relating to the holding of (i) firearms, (ii) shotguns and (iii) explosives and (b) dealer certificates at the latest date for which information is available. [105820]

  Dr. Reid
  The latest dates for which information is available regarding certificates relating to firearms, shotguns and dealers is the end of December 1998 and relating to explosives the end of December 1997.

  At 31 December 1998, 31,072 persons held firearms certificates and 63,100 held shotgun certificates.

  At 31 December 1997, 499 persons held certificates relating to the acquisition and keeping of explosives, and 64 held certificates relating to the acquisition of explosives only.

  At 31 December 1998, 295 persons held dealer certificates.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for each police force in Scotland, if he will list
  375W
  the system used to hold the register of privately held firearms and persons holding firearms certificates, naming each electronic system concerned; and if he will place the functional specification and user guide of each such system in the Library. [105823]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not held centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Assets
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of his Department's assets have been disposed of during each of the last five years; what valuation the Government puts upon his Department's assets; and if he will list his Department's assets, broken down by(a) the Department of Trade and Industry (Core Department) (b) agencies, (c) trading funds, (d) non-departmental public bodies, (e) research councils, (f) public corporations, (g) the Office of Fair Trading, (h) the Office of Telecommunications, (i) the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and (j) the Export Credit Guarantee Department. [103603]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: (a) During the 1998–99 financial year tangible fixed assets comprising land and buildings to the value of £8,475,000 were disposed of. Information for the preceding four financial years is not available in the form requested.

  The value of assets held by the Department of Trade and Industry (core department) as at 31 March 1999 is set out in the following tables:

  £000

  Fixed Assets—Tangibles

  Land and Buildings

  21,568

  Office Machinery

  235

  Computer Equipment

  3,079

  Scientific Equipment

  14,775

  Telecommunication Equipment

  70

  Furniture, Fixtures and Fittings

  3,127

  Plant and Machinery

  343

  Total

  43,197

  Fixed Assets—Investments

  British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Investment Reserve

  1,059,000

  Mineworkers Pension Scheme Investment Reserve

  713,000

  Ordinary Shares

  32,668

  Public Dividend Capital

  72,214

  Launch Investment

  1,206,700

  Loans to Trading Funds

  6,237

  Loans to Industry

  5,160

  Total

  3,094,979

  (i) Ofgas: As at 31 March 1999 (fixed asset, operating lease)

  Land and buildings

  Office equipment

  Computer equipment

  Laboratory

  Fixture and fittings

  Motor vehicle

  London consolidation

  Total

  Cost b/f

  1,790,109

  367,818

  329,284

  454,962

  395,560

  —

  —

  3,337,733

  1999 Additions

  43,957

  —

  518

  —

  48,496

  13,865

  1,823,472

  1,930,308

  Disposals

  -140,000

  -2,826

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -142,826

  Revaluation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indexation

  183,407

  11,680

  0

  0

  48,869

  458

  —

  244,414

  Cost c/f

  1,877,473

  376,672

  329,802

  454,962

  492,925

  14,323

  1,823,472

  5,369,629

  376W

  £000

  Current Assets

  Debtors

  338,658

  Short-term Investments

  1,663,000

  Cash at Bank and in hand

  410,831

  Total

  1,663,000

  (b)-(f) The net book value of assets held by ACAS on 31 March 1999 was £1,975,000, consisting of computer and office equipment, furniture, fixtures and fittings. Information on the assets of the Department's agencies, including its trading funds, of its larger executive NDPBs (those employing 25 staff or more, which are the Research Councils, the Gas Consumer Council, the National Consumer Council, the Design Council, the Coal Authority, the UKAEA, and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (replaced by the Competition Commission on 1 April 1999)), and of the Post Office, BNFL and British Shipbuilders, can be found in their annual reports and accounts for 1998–99. These are available in the Library of the House.
  (g) As at 31 March 1999 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) considered the net book value of its assets to be £4.7 million. This was made up of IT hardware and software (£2.3 million), furniture and fittings (£0.1 million) and assets under construction (£2.3 million). All of the OFT's IT hardware assets have either been replaced or upgraded over the last five years. All redundant hardware was disposed of at nil value, having been depreciated out. There has been no significant disposal of furniture over the period. The OFT had no holdings of land or buildings over the period.
  (h) Within the last year, Oftel modernised its run-down accommodation and office equipment. Most furniture and IT has been replaced or upgraded. Over the last four years, receipts for asset disposals were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  2,316

  1996–97

  1,853

  1997–98

  150

  1998–99

  1,370

  Note:

  Only figures for the last four years are available

  The draft resource accounts (unaudited) for 1998–99 show Oftel's net book value of assets as £979,000 including computer, other office and telephone equipment. Oftel's assets are recorded in the National Asset Register published by HM Treasury in November 1997.

  (i) Offer: as at 31 March 1999 (extract from 1998–99 resource account)

  £000

  Gross replacement cost@31 March 1999

  Net book value@31 March 1999

  Computer Pool

  334

  201

  Computers

  431

  260

  Furniture, Office Equipment Pool

  233

  127

  Furniture and Office Equipment

  200

  157

  Official Vehicles

  98

  83

  Total

  1,296

  828

  377W

  (i) Ofgas: As at 31 March 1999 (fixed asset, operating lease)

  Land and buildings

  Office equipment

  Computer equipment

  Laboratory

  Fixture and fittings

  Motor vehicle

  London consolidation

  Total

  Depreciation b/f

  66,169

  176,474

  238,443

  284,183

  290,586

  0

  0

  1,055,855

  Charge for the year

  73,383

  73,564

  65,960

  90,992

  88,811

  2,773

  911,736

  1,307,199

  Disposals

  -5,600

  -565

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6,165

  Revaluation

  7,336

  2,336

  0

  0

  9,774

  92

  0

  19,538

  Depreciation c/f

  141,268

  251,808

  304,403

  375,175

  389,171

  2,865

  911,736

  2,376,426

  NBV-1/4/99

  1,736,205

  124,863

  25,399

  79,786

  103,754

  11,459

  911,736

  2,993,202

  NBV-1/4/98

  1,723,940

  191,344

  90,841

  170,779

  104,974

  0

  0

  2,281,878

  (j) ECGD has made no material disposal of property over the period. However, the nature of its operation means that it has disposed of the following assets over the period:

  (a) Debt Sales: Since 1992 the Paris Club has been encouraging creditors to sell or convert a portion of their rescheduled debt. By the end of 1995–96 ECGD had successfully converted approximately £70 million of debts owed to it by Egypt, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania and in 1996–97 seven sales involving Nigerian and Tanzanian debt, to the value of £20 million, were concluded. No sales were made in 1997–98 and 1998–99. (Source: Annual Report and Trading Accounts 1995–96 to 1998–99)

  b) Forgiveness of Unrecovered Claims: Forgiveness of unrecovered claims for the last five financial years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  450.2

  1995–96

  14.6

  1996–97

  118.9

  1997–98

  115.6

  1998–99

  11.3

  Source:

  1998–99 Annual Report and Trading Accounts—Treatment of Forgiveness of Sovereign Debt

  Plutonium Holdings
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the United Kingdom's civil plutonium holdings, indicating details of imports and exports. [104699]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures for the United Kingdom's civil plutonium holdings are published by my Department each year and are placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The most recent were published on 21 June 1999 covering holdings at 31 December 1998.

  The publication of these figures is in the format agreed by an informal group of nine countries, as part of the international guidelines on the management of national holdings of civil plutonium. This is a format which facilitates international comparisons on a consistent basis.

  Information relating to exports and imports of plutonium is no longer published, but the figures for separated plutonium show both the holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to foreign bodies and the quantity of plutonium belonging to the United Kingdom which is held in locations in other countries as of 31 December each year.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in respect of each of the countries listed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 378W
  Gilbert Murray Memorial Lecture on 11 January, he will list the (a) number and (b) aggregate value of (i) ECGD and (ii) other Government-supported credits approved by his Department in respect of exporting British military equipment to each of those countries in each year from 1987 to 1997. [105065]

  Mr. Caborn
  Of the countries listed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ECGD support for defence-related business has been given only in respect of Kenya.

  The number and value of guarantees in support of this business with Kenya are as follows:

  1987–88: 1 guarantee valued at £20 million

  1988–89: 2 guarantees valued at £43 million.

  There are no other Government-supported credits in respect of exports of UK defence-related exports to these countries.

  Chrysotile Asbestos
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration has been given in the WTO to extending the market access of Canadian chrysotile asbestos; and what is the United Kingdom's policy on this issue. [104661]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Canada has brought dispute settlement action in the WTO to challenge the French ban on imports and use of chrysotile asbestos. A final report by the WTO Dispute Settlement Panel is expected in May. Since the French ban was introduced, the UK and the EU have conducted further scientific analysis and have also taken action to ban the import of chrysotile asbestos on health grounds. The UK action came into affect on 24 November 1999. The EU requires all member states to have similar action by 1 January 2005. A number of specialised safety-critical uses are temporarily permitted until safe substitutes have been developed.

  Company Assistance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support his Department makes available to manufacturing companies based in non-assisted areas in(a) Chorley and (b) the North West. [105275]

  Mr. Caborn
  Support for manufacturers is listed at Annex A of the DTI report, "Manufacturing in the Knowledge Driven Economy". This report provides contact details for further information and can be found on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/comp/competitive.
  379W
  In recent months my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also announced a number of new initiatives which will assist in the creation and development of manufacturing companies: Regional Capital Venture Funds; a Phoenix Fund, the UK High Technology Fund and the Innovative High Growth Start Up Initiative which will be open to companies across the whole of the North West, including Chorley.

  In addition, in the New Year my right hon. Friend announced the new Enterprise Grant scheme. This is part of the Government's response to the financing problems of SMEs. It is proposed that this will cover 64 per cent. of the population in the North West.

  UK exports of goods and services—balance of payments basis

  £ million

  1990

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Goods

  Austria

  694

  1,126

  1,267

  1,157

  1,185

  945

  Belgium-Lux

  5,557

  8,312

  8,538

  8,444

  8,423

  7,377

  Denmark

  1,390

  2,113

  2,216

  2,089

  2,050

  1,688

  Finland

  1,034

  1,718

  1,818

  1,569

  1,435

  1,111

  France

  10,762

  15,290

  17,132

  16,581

  16,466

  13,774

  Germany

  13,007

  20,274

  20,761

  20,650

  20,611

  16,654

  Greece

  672

  1,047

  1,141

  1,046

  1,051

  911

  Ireland

  5,224

  7,806

  8,683

  9,347

  9,610

  8,674

  Italy

  5,525

  7,895

  8,043

  8,200

  8,615

  6,348

  Netherlands

  7,393

  12,362

  13,516

  13,901

  13,004

  11,190

  Portugal

  1,016

  1,471

  1,683

  1,750

  1.717

  1,397

  Spain

  3,780

  6,110

  6,738

  6,730

  7,171

  6,242

  Sweden

  2,669

  4,160

  4,429

  4,444

  4,401

  3,314

  EU

  58,723

  89,684

  95,965

  95,908

  95,739

  79,625

  Canada

  1,919

  1,804

  1,970

  2,147

  2,178

  2,132

  Mexico

  263

  277

  317

  428

  544

  487

  USA

  13,042

  17,901

  19,761

  20,901

  21,702

  20,032

  NAFTA

  15,224

  19,982

  22,048

  23,476

  24,424

  22,651

  1 January to October

  Note:

  EU totals include exports to EU institutions.

  Sources:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, Pink Book, 1999, ONS. Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, ONS

  UK exports of goods and services—balance of payments basis

  £ million

  1990

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Services

  Austria

  181

  341

  360

  308

  322

  Belgium-Lux

  801

  1,440

  1,415

  1,577

  1,722

  Denmark

  311

  504

  860

  866

  946

  Finland

  186

  297

  466

  389

  409

  France

  1,908

  2,656

  2,776

  2,852

  3,312

  Germany

  2,544

  4,007

  3,958

  4,384

  4,228

  Greece

  329

  491

  473

  552

  613

  Ireland

  853

  1,926

  2,168

  2,255

  2,412

  Italy

  1,096

  1,468

  1,581

  1,687

  1,835

  Netherlands

  1,067

  1,775

  2,017

  2,299

  2,535

  Portugal

  158

  305

  315

  262

  321

  Spain

  731

  1,087

  1,244

  1,179

  1,422

  Sweden

  561

  817

  907

  948

  1,078

  EU

  10,831

  17,487

  18,685

  19,790

  21,380

  Canada

  696

  975

  940

  1,180

  1,377

  Mexico

  102

  143

  104

  145

  148

  USA

  6,873

  10,774

  12,247

  13,866

  14,106

  NAFTA

  7,671

  11,892

  13,291

  15,191

  15,631

  Note:

  EU totals include exports to EU institutions.

  Sources:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, Pink Book, 1999, ONS.

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, ONS.

  British Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for the years(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 1995, (e) 1996, (f) 1997, (g) 1998 and (h) 1999 the value of British exports of (i) goods and (ii) traded services to (1) the other 14 present members of the EU and (2) the three members of NAFTA. [105336]

  Mr. Caborn
  The available information is given in the following table. Consistent figures for 1980 and 1985 are not available. Details for exports of services by partner country are only available annually.

  EU Regional Funds
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to ensure that assisted area status grants for the Sussex Coastal Strip are paid promptly by the European Commission. [105216]

  Mr. Caborn
  Payments of Regional Selective Assistance in the Assisted Areas in England are made by the UK Government.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the late payment of assisted area status grants to the Sussex Coastal Strip by the European Commission. [105215]

  Mr. Caborn
  None.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding grants awarded for assisted area status for the Sussex Coastal Strip between Shoreham and Newhaven. [105214]
  381W
  Mr. Caborn
  Discussions with the Commission on the proposals for new Assisted Areas, including the Sussex Coastal Strip between Shoreham and Newhaven, are continuing. We will announce the new map as soon as possible.

  Anglo-French Trade Issues
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister of France to discuss trade issues. [104206]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would not normally meet the French Prime Minister to discuss trade issues and consequently has no plans to meet him in the future. My right hon. Friend met his opposite number, the French Minister for the Economy, Finance and Industry, at the Anglo-French Summit in London in November 1999 and Trade issues were discussed at this meeting. In addition, I met the French Minister for Trade in October 1999 and we are in touch regarding bilateral meetings as and when the need arises.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Cup
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the economic benefits which will accrue to each nation of the UK as a result of the England World Cup 2006 bid being successful; what account was taken of such an assessment in granting Government assistance to the England World Cup 2006 bid; and if he will make a statement. [103752]

  Kate Hoey
  As the bid for the 2006 World Cup has been made by the English Football Association, and as all matches will be played in England if the bid is successful, no separate assessments of the economic benefits of holding the tournament in the Home Nations have been carried out. However, studies of the effects of major sports events held in the UK in the past strongly suggest that a successful bid will bring benefits to all parts of the UK. Sport England took account of these studies, together with analyses of the economic effects of previous World Cup tournaments, in considering its grant to the FA in support of the bid.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the cost of Government expenditure and support since 1997, other than in grants and loans, for the England World Cup 2006 bid. [103755]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government are fully committed to supporting the Football Association's bid for the 2006 World Cup, and Sport England has earmarked £3 million in grant-in-aid to the bid. Direct costs to the Government have arisen in respect of the previous Minister of Sport's visits to a number of countries in support of the bid. The cost of these visits was £102,780, although some other Government business was also conducted. Mr. Banks's duties as Special Envoy to the bid have involved further overseas visits, the costs of which are principally being met by the FA and by sponsorship, although the Government are making a contribution to these costs.
  382W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when Sport England will publish its full accounts on its contribution to the FA (FIFA) World Cup 2006 bid. [104169]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: Sport England made an award of £3 million in 1998 in respect of the Football Association's bid for the 2006 World Cup. In accordance with the Accounts Direction for Sport England's National Lottery Distribution Accounts, that award was reflected within the overall totals for grant commitments in the annual accounts for 1998–99. To date, Sport England has paid £1,328,404 to the Football Association in respect of the bid. This and future payments in respect of the bid will be included in the overall totals of commitments met in Sport England's accounts.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment Sport England has made of the proposals for the English National Stadium at Wembley put forward by Wembley National Stadium Ltd. regarding the proposals' compliance with the Lottery Funding Agreement concluded between them. [104335]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: While Sport England were satisfied that Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) and the Football Association had complied with the technical requirements of the Lottery Funding Agreement, the solution for athletics was not ideal. The DLA Ellerbe Beckett report raised serious concerns about the proposed solution for athletics in terms of the practicality and cost. Further discussions between my Department and all interested parties concluded that athletics should be removed from Wembley.

  Sport England, the Football Association and WNSL are currently considering whether amendments are necessary to the existing Lottery Funding Agreement to reflect Wembley's new role as the centrepiece for football and rugby league in England. In the light of the prospective agreement, the Football Association has proposed that £20 million be returned to Sport England.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions his Department has had with Sport England over the handling of the money agreed to be refunded by the developers of Wembley Stadium; and if these funds will be held separately; [105348]

  (2) if Sport England has received any funds due to be returned to his Department in respect of failure by the developers of Wembley Stadium to provide adequate athletics provision; [105347]

  (3) how much of the money due to be repaid to Sport England has been received to date from the developers of Wembley Stadium; [105349]

  (4) on what date Sport England expects full payment of the money agreed to be refunded by the developers of Wembley Stadium. [105350]

  Kate Hoey
  As signatories to the Lottery Funding Agreement, it is for Sport England, the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to agree
  383W
  the details in respect of the proposal to return £20 million of the Lottery award. Discussions are currently ongoing and a further announcement will be made in due course.

  London Freedom Pass
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of(a) customer awareness of the London Freedom Pass and (b) uptake of the Pass. [105018]

  Janet Anderson
  This Department has made no direct assessment of customer awareness of the London Pass or its uptake. However, we understand that there has been widespread national and international media coverage about the London Pass since its launch on 10 November last year. Information about the pass is also available through British Tourist Authority and London Tourist Board publicity. The pass is purchased from a private company and currently allows free entry to 43 attractions in the capital.

  The producers of the pass predict first year sales figures of 100,000 and they say that advance sales are looking healthy. We hope that the pass will widen access to a range of attractions and leave visitors to London more satisfied and ready to return again.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many opera performances have been cancelled by the Royal Opera House since the publication of the new season's programme; and at what estimated cost in lost revenue income. [105339]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Royal Opera House has cancelled nine performances of opera since the opening season was announced in January 1999. I understand the overall loss to the Royal Opera House of the nine cancelled performances is estimated at £243,115 when the value of lost revenue is offset by savings in expenditure. The Royal Opera House's contingency budget will accommodate this loss.

  Running Tracks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to provide support for the creation of running tracks in each district authority area. [105545]

  Kate Hoey
  The majority of Government money specifically allocated to sport and active recreation is channelled through Sport England, an independent body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which, within an overall policy framework set by the Department, dispenses these funds according to its own detailed policies and priorities.

  Sport England is also responsible for overseeing the Sports Lottery Fund. Last year, it published its Lottery Strategy document which sets out the broad strategic framework within which it will distribute Lottery money to sport over the next ten years.

  Sport England's Lottery Community Projects capital fund will invest £115 million per year between 1999–2000, with £21 million earmarked for projects
  384W
  requiring under £100,000, and will inject a total investment of £1.115 billion over the next ten years to sports capital projects, which could include running tracks, making a significant contribution to the sporting life of communities.

  Local authorities may apply for Sports Lottery Funding for specialist facilities, such as running tracks, with the support of the governing body, UK Athletics, through the National Athletics Facilities Strategy.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase the number of running tracks in Lancashire. [105546]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to increase the number of running tracks in Lancashire. The existing number of running tracks in Lancashire fully meets the requirements of Sport England's National Athletics Facilities Strategy, which was produced in partnership with the athletics governing body, UK Athletics.

  However, we would both welcome any proposals for further investment in the sporting infrastructure in Lancashire to ensure that every community has access to as wide a range of facilities as possible, and that the opportunities to use them exist for everybody.

  National Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the offer to adapt the City of Manchester Stadium to accommodate the British National Athletics Stadium; and if he will make a statement; [105550]

  (2) when he intends to announce his decision on the location for a British National Athletics Stadium; and if he will make a statement; [105501]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his plans for a British national athletics stadium. [105502]

  Kate Hoey
  Following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 20 December 1999, Sport England has, together with UK Sport, UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association (BOA) and my Department undertaken further work on the non-Wembley options for staging international athletics events. Sport England is taking forward further work to establish the viability of possible alternative venues although the final decision on timing and location of bids for the 2005 World Athletics Championship and a UK Olympic bid, rests with UK Athletics and the BOA respectively, Although a final decision has yet to be made and no options have been ruled out, both UK Athletics and the BOA consider that the strongest option for a successful bid would be to base it in London. The BOA is therefore conducting a feasibility study of a possible future London-based Olympic bid, which they will submit to Government in the next few months.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department has taken to identify potential sites for a national athletics stadium. [105346]

  Kate Hoey
  Following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Sport England has, together with UK Sport, UK Athletics, the BOA
  385W
  and my Department undertaken further work on the non-Wembley options for staging international athletics events.

  Sport England is taking forward further work to establish the viability of possible venues for the World Athletics Championships in 2005 and further details will be announced once this work has been completed. Sport England will also be assessing, with the BOA, the extent to which possible venues can be readily upgraded to accommodate Olympic requirements.

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department gives local authorities for employing tourism officers. [105049]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: This Department gives no direct assistance to local authorities for employing tourism officers. However, our guidance pack, "Measuring the Local Impact of Tourism", offers useful advice to tourism officers and others in measuring the value and volume of tourism in local authority areas. The results of any such work may help local authorities determine the number and nature of tourism officers they wish to employ.

  Relevant and reliable statistics will also form a useful base for the Cultural Strategies my Department is encouraging local authorities to produces. These will express the local cultural vision and priorities in response to the needs and aspirations of local communities, as well as recognising the role of cultural services—including tourism—in tackling the wider objectives of social inclusion, regeneration, lifelong learning, and healthier and safer communities.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of tourists to the UK in the last year for which figures are available visited(a) the North West and (b) London. [105048]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: An estimated 23.4 million visits were made to the UK from overseas in 1998, excluding visits from the Republic of Ireland. Overseas visitors spent at least one night in (a) the North West Tourist board regions (encompassing Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire) on 5 per cent. (1.2 million) and (b) London on 52 per cent. (12.3 million) of these trips. Visits on which both the North West and London were visited will be included in the figures for both the respective regions.

  Historic Buildings (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department is giving to(a) Astley Hall and (b) other historic buildings in Chorley. [105036]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: My Department does not directly fund historic buildings.
  386W
  However, Astley Hall and other historic buildings in Chorley have received assistance from English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund as follows:

  English Heritage
  Astley Hall:

  £9,000 (1983)

  £7,100 (1985)

  £5,000(1987)

  a further £4,750 was also made available in 1987
  St. Georges Conservation Area Partnership Scheme (includes works to historic buildings)—£50,000 (1996–99)
  Bank Hall—£25,478 offered to date

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Astley Hall: No awards made

  Lower Kem Mill: £68,530

  Heapey and Wheelton War Memorial: £12,000

  St. Paul's Church, Adlington: £64,200.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Family Law Act 1996
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the law relating to divorce. [104881]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written parliamentary answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 213W. The position remains unchanged.

  Persistent Young Offenders
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average period between arrest and sentencing for persistent young offenders in each of the last 10 years. [105702]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales was 142 days in 1996, 141 days in 1997, 125 days in 1998, and an estimated 110 days in the first six months of 1999. Figures for earlier years are not available.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "Raising Aspirations in the 21st Century"
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of printing Raising Aspirations in the 21st Century; how many copies have been printed; to whom they have been distributed; and at what cost. [105361]

  Mr. Wills
  The cost of producing this document was £12,000. 5,000 copies have been printed. Copies were distributed at the North of England Education Conference in Wigan on 6 January 2000. Other copies have been distributed to interested parties on demand. Copies are available to others on request and are free of charge.

  Summer Camps
  Mr. Bos well
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for introduction of informal summer camp activities for young people; what will be the initial cost, and funded by whom; who will be able to run such camps under official auspices; by whom they will be vetted and inspected; if a structure of certification and qualifications is envisaged; who will carry the liability for participants and third parties; and if he will make a statement. [105560]

  Jacqui Smith
  We envisage that a range of opportunities, including but not confined to adventure activities, will be made available to those 16-year-olds wishing to take part during the summer after their GCSEs, to help their transition between school and advanced study or work or training. The Department is working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and with others, on how to take this initiative forward, including the matters mentioned by the hon. Member. We expect to make further announcements in due course.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the minimum number of sixth form students necessary for an 11 to 18 school effectively to implement Curriculum 2000. [104850]

  Mr. Wicks
  No assessment of the minimum number of sixth form students necessary for an 11 to 18 school effectively to implement the forthcoming reforms to post-16 qualifications has been made by my Department. A range of circumstances, of which student numbers is only one, will affect the ways in which schools and colleges implement the reforms. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has published detailed curriculum guidance on the reforms covering a range of relevant factors, including the size of the institution.

  Youth Support Service
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will be used to assess which careers guidance services are appropriate for transfer to the combined Youth Support Service; who will undertake this assessment; and what role interested partners will play in this process. [104695]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are creating a new service with a new vision to ensure that all young people have access to the support and guidance services they need, when and where they need it, co-ordinating the services currently provided by an array of different agencies concerned with different aspects of young people's lives. We expect that the best careers service companies, together with a range of other local partners, will play a major role in the new arrangements. At this stage no decision has been made regarding any assessment criteria. We shall be announcing shortly the key functions that we expect the new support service to perform and how we will involve major partners in developing and implementing the new service.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the rescheduled increase in employers' contributions for teachers' pensions in the next and future financial years, the actuarial basis of the calculation and the impact on the budget of each local education authority. [105100]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The employer contribution rate for members of the teachers' pension scheme is currently 7.2 per cent. The rate from 1 April 2000 will be 7.4 per cent; from 1 April 2002 the rate will be 8.35 per cent.

  The increase from 1 April 2000 is to fund improvements to scheme benefits which will be introduced from that date. The increase from 1 April 2002 is to eliminate the balance of liabilities identified by the Government Actuary's valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 1996. I shall shortly be laying before the House the Government Actuary's report on the valuation of the scheme.

  Rescheduling the planned increase will reduce pressures on Local Education Authority budgets by £90 million in 2000–01 and 2001–02. The reduced pressure for each Local Education Authority is as follows:

  Local education authority

  £000

  City of London

  4

  Camden

  386

  Greenwich

  554

  Hackney

  455

  Hammersmith

  283

  Islington

  407

  Kensington and Chelsea

  182

  Lambeth

  490

  Lewisham

  565

  Southwark

  546

  Tower Hamlets

  631

  Wandsworth

  427

  Westminster

  297

  Barking

  375

  Barnet

  599

  Bexley

  471

  Brent

  542

  Bromley

  560

  Croydon

  628

  Ealing

  573

  Enfield

  616

  Haringey

  494

  Harrow

  361

  Havering

  437

  Hillingdon

  484

  Hounslow

  473

  Kingston upon Thames

  235

  Merton

  287

  Newham

  702

  Redbridge

  528

  Richmond upon Thames

  228

  Sutton

  352

  Waltham Forest

  488

  Birmingham

  2,213

  Coventry

  595

  Dudley

  526

  Sandwell

  590

  Solihull

  387

  Walsall

  546

  Wolverhampton

  490

  Knowsley

  373

  Liverpool

  1,041

  389W

  Local education authority

  £000

  St. Helens

  337

  Sefton

  537

  Wirral

  652

  Bolton

  516

  Bury

  316

  Manchester

  906

  Oldham

  473

  Rochdale

  429

  Salford

  414

  Stockport

  461

  Tameside

  421

  Trafford

  401

  Wigan

  547

  Barnsley

  383

  Doncaster

  594

  Rotherham

  507

  Sheffield

  859

  Bradford

  1,023

  Calderdale

  390

  Kirklees

  723

  Leeds

  1,285

  Wakefield

  568

  Gateshead

  345

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  480

  North Tyneside

  341

  South Tyneside

  301

  Sunderland

  558

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  Bath and North East Somerset

  274

  City of Bristol

  589

  North Somerset

  297

  South Gloucestershire

  414

  Hartlepool

  189

  Middlesbrough

  297

  Redcar and Cleveland

  287

  Stockton-on-Tees

  360

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  506

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  540

  North East Lincolnshire

  324

  North Lincolnshire

  284

  North Yorkshire

  973

  York

  266

  Bedfordshire

  712

  Luton

  385

  Buckinghamshire

  855

  Milton Keynes

  407

  Derbyshire

  1,207

  Derby

  428

  Dorset

  603

  Poole

  217

  Bournemouth

  245

  Durham

  889

  Darlington

  176

  East Sussex

  776

  Brighton and Hove

  370

  Hampshire

  1,973

  Portsmouth

  325

  Southampton

  383

  Leicestershire

  1,010

  Leicester

  584

  Rutland

  51

  Staffordshire

  1,411

  Stoke-on-Trent

  440

  Wiltshire

  705

  Swindon

  324

  Bracknell Forest

  181

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  226

  West Berkshire

  271

  Reading

  211

  Slough

  261

  Wokingham

  257

  Cambridgeshire

  843

  390W

  Local education authority

  £000

  Peterborough

  348

  Cheshire

  1,156

  Halton

  258

  Warrington

  345

  Devon

  1,077

  Plymouth

  476

  Torbay

  220

  Essex

  2,326

  Southend-on-Sea

  307

  Thurrock

  268

  Herefordshire

  271

  Worcestershire

  874

  Kent

  2,465

  Medway Towns

  527

  Lancashire

  2,064

  Blackburn with Darwen

  309

  Blackpool

  239

  Nottinghamshire

  1,305

  Nottingham City

  506

  Shropshire

  441

  The Wrekin

  293

  Cornwall

  836

  Cumbria

  862

  Gloucestershire

  947

  Hertfordshire

  1,975

  Isle of Wight

  240

  Lincolnshire

  1,113

  Norfolk

  1,273

  Northamptonshire

  1,135

  Northumberland

  565

  Oxfordshire

  962

  Somerset

  780

  Suffolk

  1,109

  Surrey

  1,589

  Warwickshire

  824

  West Sussex

  1,195

TREASURY

  Golden Jubilee (Commemorative Coin)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to issue a coin to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne. [104810]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that in 2002 a crown piece should be issued to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the throne. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the objectives and purpose of each working group participating in the Outline National Changeover Plan. [105658]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the working groups are outlined in pages 8 and 9 of HM Treasury's "Third Report on euro preparations" which was published in November 1999. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the duty on beer. [105357]

  Mr. Timms
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

  Exports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the strength of the pound on UK exports in the last 12 months. [105413]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Export volumes have grown strongly since early 1999, with the third quarter level up 6 per cent. on a year earlier, and CBI surveys show that exporters' optimism improved steadily throughout the year.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of the smuggling of petrol and diesel into the UK in each of the last three years. [105359]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Customs and Excise does not have sufficient reliable information on which to base published estimates of the revenue lost through road fuel smuggling into the UK.

  Cumulative savings in debt interest

  £ billion

  Percentage point change in interest rates

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  -0.5

  -0.3

  -0.6

  -1.0

  -1.4

  -1.8

  -2.3

  -0.75

  -0.5

  -1.0

  -1.5

  -2.1

  -2.7

  -3.4

  -1.0

  -0.6

  -1.3

  -2.0

  -2.8

  -3.6

  -4.5

  -2.0

  -1.3

  -2.6

  -4.0

  -5.5

  -7.1

  -8.9

  -3.0

  -1.9

  -3.8

  -5.9

  -8.1

  -10.5

  -13.2

  Note:

  Figures shown are cumulative from the current year to date, i.e. the figures for 2004–05 represent the savings in debt interest over the whole five year period.

  Benefit Claimants (Tamworth)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Tamworth were unemployed and claiming benefit in(a) 1997 and (b) 1999. [105152]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 18 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on how many people in Tamworth were unemployed and claiming benefit in (a) 1997 and (b) 1999.
  The ONS publish a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  The average unadjusted claimant count level in the Tamworth constituency was 1,775 or 4.5% of the workforce in 1997 and 1,633 or 4.1% of the workforce in 1999*.
  * Average of 11 months: January to November 1999.

  Information Technology Services Agency
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the outsourcing of the Information Technology Services Agency will be subject to precontract review by the Treasury PFI Taskforce. [105195]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes. The outsourcing of the Information Technology Services Agency is a part of the ACCORD PFI project with which the Treasury Taskforce is closely involved, and it will be subject to a pre-contract review which will be carried out by the Taskforce in association with the McCartney Committee which has been set up to examine the lessons that can be learnt from past Government IT projects and to give guidance on the conduct of future projects.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual cumulative savings to the Exchequer which would result from lower debt interest costs if United Kingdom interest rates were(a) 0.5 per cent., (b) 0.75 per cent., (c) 1 per cent., (d) 2 per cent. and (e) 3 per cent. lower across the yield curve for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01, (iii) 2001–02, (iv) 2002–03, (v) 2003–04 and (vi) 2004–05. [105428]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is in the table.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what criteria are used to determine the civil service grades classified as politically free groups. [105615]

  Mr. Stringer
  Operating within the scope of the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary, European Parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly Candidature) Order 1987, departments and agencies must allow civil servants in industrial and non-office grades the freedom to take part in all political activities.

DEFENCE

  RAF Future Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department ordered a review of the proposals for the RAF's airlifts requirement; and how long he expects this review to take. [104403]
  393W
  Mr. Spellar
  We are continuing to assess the proposals for both our short term and longer term airlift requirements. We are seeking the best value for money solution to our airlift requirements and hope to be in a position to make a decision early this year.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps, and at what cost, he is taking(a) to increase recruitment into the Territorial Army and (b) to increase the retention of personnel. [103929]

  Date/event

  Cost

  1998–99

  Normal trickle recruit marketing culminating in a major Spring Awareness National and Regional Campaign and TA Open Day (13 March 1999). This included the making of a new TV commercial.

  £5.94 million

  1998–99

  Corporate Communication strategy developed and delivered in conjunction with Consolidated Communications PR. This included News sheets, Bulletins, leaflet, wide-ranging PR and Video.

  £280k

  1999–2000

  By Spring 2000 the year's recruit marketing will have cost £5.3 million. Specific marketing includes a focused Army Medical Service TA Recruit Marketing Campaign (£500,000), an Autumn campaign mainly in cinemas, and a Spring campaign culminating in TA Day on 25 March 2000. The Campaign will include TV at National level, with support from radio and press at Regional level.

  £5.3 million

  It is not possible to identify separately the money spent by individual units on direct recruiting because these costs are inextricably linked to payments to individual soldiers.

  As far as retention is concerned, the assurance given under the Strategic Defence Review that the TA would be fully resourced and that the TA is to be more usable, relevant and integrated, combined with realistic and exciting training on current equipment, will encourage volunteers to serve on. Over the last 18 months, a TA Retention Working Group has been producing a report which includes a Three Year Retention Action Plan. This contains a number of new ideas and initiatives. In advance of finalisation of the report, three relatively inexpensive but important measures have been achieved:
  Introduction of a Retention Brochure—£25,000.
  Introduction of TA Record of Service and Achievement (TARSA) with a TA soldier can use to record both his military and civilian skills, thus allowing a direct read across from one to the other—£50,000. It is planned that this work on TARSA should migrate into the pan-Army development of Personal Development Records (PDR), which is part of the Adjutant Generals Human Resources Strategy and links with "Learning Force Measures".
  Setting of in-year targets for all units with a view to reducing the level of avoidable wastage from the TA. Overall wastage is currently about 30 per cent. and the target for 2000–01 will be set at 27 per cent.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has issued to the Territorial Army on compliance with the working time directive. [105624]

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

  Raytheon Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the contract with Raytheon
  394W
  Mr. Spellar
  Activity to attract recruits to the Territorial Army (TA) falls into two categories:recruit marketing which is managed centrally by Headquarters Land Command and Recruiting Group and at local and regional level by Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations (TAVRAs), and
  direct recruiting which is the responsibility of Unit Commanding Officers.

  Over the last 12–18 months, recruit marketing work to maintain awareness of the TA and to engender a good recruiting environment for the future has comprised:

  Systems for 5 Air Bourne stand-off radar will be spent with (a) UK-based companies, (b) other Europe-based companies and (c) US-based companies. [104833]

  Mr. Spellar
  About 75 per cent. of the contract will be spent with UK-based companies. The remainder will mainly be spent with US/Canadian based companies. Raytheon have undertaken to provide additional work to UK companies to bring the total to 100 per cent. of the contract value.

  Medical Reserves
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to implement the proposal outlined in paragraph 106 of the Strategic Defence Review to call out medical reserves at lower scales of effort; and what assessment he has made of the level of success in establishing this proposal without disruption to the National Health Service. [104807]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department and the Department of Health are currently progressing work to assess the implications for the National Health Service of deploying substantial numbers of Territorial Army and other medical Reservists on military operations, should that prove necessary. The initial stages of this work are expected to be completed by this summer.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of accommodation for British forces in Kosovo in the absence of the planned temporary field accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [104798]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: In order to bridge the gap between the current in-service tentage and the more robust Temporary Field

  395W
  Accommodation, an interim solution, known as Improved Tented Camps, has been put in place. This has been a great success which has provided warm, dry and comfortable accommodation and met with the approval of the British forces who use it.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 92W, for what reasons the temporary field accommodation project in Kosovo was not fully deployed by December 1999; and under contract penalty clauses how much of the cost he will claw back from the contractor. [104797]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The original requirement and camp build sequence were drawn up before UK forces had entered Kosovo. Delays have been caused partly by the need to change the requirement and Temporary Field Accommodation (TFA) camp build sequence to reflect the circumstances actually encountered on entry into Kosovo and partly by supply, communications, transport and technical problems experienced by the contractor. Improved tented camps have been made available which provide a good enhancement to accommodation standards. Under the TFA contract we are withholding a significant element of the payment for each camp pending completion and will seek liquidated damages where delay can be shown to be the fault of the contractor.

  Royal Marines Rifle Range, Deal
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the report on the long-term management of the redundant Royal Marines rifle range at Kingsdown in Deal, commissioned by his Department in 1988 and conducted by the consultants Mouchel, will be made available to Dover District Council.[105210]

  Mr. Spellar
  Mouchels sent their report to W. S. Atkins, as Dover District Council's technical consultants, on 7 January 2000.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in connection with coastal protection work at the redundant Royal Marines rifle range at Kingsdown in Deal. [105209]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has received representations from, and been in dialogue over a number of years with, various individuals and bodies about aspects of the future of Kingsdown Range, including coastal protection issues. These include the present hon. Member for Dover and his predecessor as MP, Dover District Council, Kent County Council, Ringwould with Kingsdown Parish Council and a number of members of the public.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends taking in the immediate term to prevent the potential collapse of Undercliff Road at the redundant Royal Marines rifle range at Kingsdown in Deal into the sea. [105211]

  Mr. Spellar
  Undercliffe Road is a public road and neither the property nor responsibility of my Department, but of Dover District Council, who are statutorily empowered to take what action it considers appropriate to protect its road from the sea.
  396W
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects works to commence to secure the long-term future of Undercliff Road at the redundant Royal Marines rifle range at Kingsdown in Deal in line with proposals made by his Department in May 1996. [105212]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department did not in May 1996, nor has at any other time, make proposals to carry out work intended to secure the long-term future of Undercliffe Road. As a public road, it is neither the property nor the responsibility of my Department, but of Dover District Council.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of ex-servicemen and women who are former Far East prisoners of war. [105239]

  Mr. Spellar
  50,016 Service personnel from the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom were captured by Japanese forces during the Second World War. No centrally collated figures exist of the number of former FEPOWS still living since, once their military liability had ended, any subsequent deaths of ex-Service personnel were not centrally recorded.

  Sandhurst
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, columns 89–90W, on Sandhurst, how many of the British officer cadets who were medically discharged from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in each of the years 1995 to 1999 received their secondary education at (a) Welbeck College, (b) state schools, (c) independent schools and (d) overseas schools. [105241]

  Mr. Spellar
  From the records available, the information requested is as follows:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Welbeck College

  2

  2

  3

  2

  —

  State Schools

  19

  13

  10

  11

  3

  Independent Schools

  18

  11

  7

  3

  3

  Overseas Schools

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number Recorded

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Total

  40

  26

  22

  19

  6

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in implementing the aspects of the Strategic Defence Review relating to the nuclear deterrent; and if he will make a statement. [105643]

  Mr. Hoon
  The SDR conducted a rigorous re-examination of our deterrence requirements. The Government have made it clear that we shall maintain the minimum credible nuclear deterrent while working towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The longer-term goals of arms control, non-proliferation and multilateral disarmament were advanced considerably by a range of SDR measures. In addition to announcing Trident as the UK's only nuclear weapon system, these included: a reduction in the number of warheads
  397W
  deployed in each submarine; a significant reduction in the size of the UK's total nuclear weapon stockpile; the de-targeting of Trident missiles; having only one submarine on deterrent patrol, and the placing of the submarine on deterrent patrol at several days' notice to fire. These measures have all been introduced.

  Following a trial period of moving towards single crewing of SSBNs, we have however decided to retain double crews. This decision reflects our determination, as part of our policy for people, to minimise the pressure on our service personnel and give them greater stability and time with their families.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations where there are more than 100 married quarters. [105562]

  Mr. Spellar
  A list of locations where there are more than 100 married quarters is as follows:

  Chivenor

  Culdrose

  Lympstone

  Plymouth

  St. Eval

  St. Mawgan

  Torpoint

  Colerne

  Corsham

  Rudloe Manor

  Devizes

  Hullavington

  Locking

  Lyneham

  South Cerney

  Taunton

  Warminster

  Wroughton

  Yeovil

  Brecon

  Chepstow

  Haverfordwest

  Hereford

  Innsworth

  St. Athan

  Cosford

  Donnington

  Kineton

  Lichfield

  Nuneaton

  Shawbury

  Stafford

  Ternhill

  Blanford

  Bovington

  Poole

  Portland

  Weymouth

  Andover

  Larkhill

  Middle Wallop

  398W

  RAF Boscombe Down

  Upavon

  Wilton

  Drayton

  Eastney

  Fareham

  Hilsea

  Marchwood

  Old Rowner

  Paulsgrove

  Stamshaw

  Thorney Island

  Winchester

  Worthy Down

  Bulford

  Tidworth

  Aborfield

  Bracknell

  Hermitage, Thatcham

  Sandhurst

  Shrivenham

  Aldershot

  Waddington

  Wittering

  Dishforth

  Fulford

  Gatenby

  Harrogate

  Hemswell Cliff

  Kirton in Linsey

  Leconfield

  Linton on Ouse

  Ripon

  Strensall

  Topcliffe

  Catterick (N)

  Catterick (S)

  Longhoughton

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Benbecula

  Lossiemouth

  Aldershot North Camp

  Bordon

  Burghfield

  Church Crookham

  Cove

  Deepcut

  Farnborough

  Odiham

  Pirbright

  Heston

  Salamanca Park

  Bushey

  Mill Hill

  Northolt

  Northwood

  Stanmore Park

  399W

  Uxbridge

  Whetstone

  Chelsea

  Hounslow

  Kingston

  Knightsbridge

  Putney

  Victoria

  Windsor

  Woolwich

  Canterbury

  Chatham

  Dover

  Maidstone

  Shorncliffe

  Abingdon

  Benson

  Bicester

  Brize Norton

  High Wycombe

  Basic

  Bassingbourne

  Brampton

  Chicksand

  Halton

  Henlow

  Oakington

  Waterbeach

  Wyton

  Coltishall

  Honington

  Marham

  Swanton Morley

  Colchester

  Wattisham

  Wimbish

  Woodbridge

  Chester

  Preston

  Sealand

  Valley

  Chilwell

  Coningsby

  Cranwell

  Digby

  Leicester (Wigston)

  North Luffenham

  RAF Cottesmore

  Scampton

  Churchill

  Colgrain

  Machrihanish

  Rhu

  Arbroath

  Dreghorn

  Leuchars

  Longstone

  400W

  Polton

  Redford

  Rosyth

  Buchan

  Elgin

  Forres

  Inverness

  Kinloss.

  Bullying
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent measures he has taken to stop bullying in the armed forces; [105223]

  (2) what percentage of armed forces personnel who have gone absent without leave gave bullying as the main reason for absconding in each of the last three years; [105217]

  (3) what is the recorded incidence of bullying in each branch of the armed forces for each of the past 10 years; [105218]

  (4) if he will publish a breakdown by regiment of incidents of bullying in each of the past 10 years; [105219]

  (5) if he will make it his policy to collate information on incidents of (a) racial, (b) sexual, (c) verbal and (d) physical bullying; [105220]

  (6) what help is offered to victims of bullying in the armed services; [105221]

  (7) how many armed forces personnel have been disciplined for bullying in each branch of the armed services for each of the last 10 years. [105222]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is not a specific military offence of bullying in the Services.

  Any information provided on reported incidents or complaints of bullying, or what is perceived as bullying by the victim, leading to personnel being subsequently charged with a disciplinary offence, is complicated by the number of different specific charge which could be more generally interpreted as bullying. Furthermore, not all disciplinary cases are processed through the Court-Martial system; some cases of a less serious nature might well be dealt with by a Commanding Officer summarily, and are only recorded on local personnel files. Each individual file would therefore need to be searched manually to provide appropriate data. This could be completed only at a disproportionate cost.

  Similar difficulties apply in determining whether Service personnel go Absent Without Leave (AWOL) because of bullying. The only way to determine a cause for AWOL would be to examine every Service interview record following the return of an absentee. This could be completed only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Services policy, which is promulgated to all personnel, is that bullying, or sexual and racial harassment, will not be tolerated. Furthermore, before enlistment procedures are carried out, recruits are made aware of the Services' policies on bullying and harassment. It is the responsibility of officers and senior ranks/rates to preserve good order and discipline at all times, and this is reinforced on the appropriate training

  401W
  courses. All allegations of bullying or ill-treatment are investigated, and depending on the strength of the evidence, appropriate disciplinary action is taken against the perpetrators. The policy of zero tolerance towards bullying was re-emphasised when the new code of social conduct was issued to all personnel on 12 January 2000. All these measures are kept under review and re-focused as necessary.

  Additionally, the Services have produced Equal Opportunities Directives and pamphlets, which emphasise that bullying, and racial or sexual harassment are unacceptable, and give guidance on making complaints.

  Within the last 18 months, the Services have also set up confidential telephone helplines. The contact numbers are well publicised throughout the Services and are accessible to all personnel. While there is some difference in the methods of operation, the Services hope that personnel will use the helplines should they be subjected to harassment or bullying, or would welcome advice if they wish to discuss issues in complete confidence. All those in positions of authority have a responsibility for personnel under their command. Individuals can make

  Warships in Portsmouth Naval base at 0900

  Ship

  Type

  2 January 2000

  9 January 2000

  16 January 2000

  Anglesey

  Patrol vessel

  Yes

  No

  No

  Atherstone

  MCMV1

  Yes

  No

  No

  Bangor

  Mine hunter

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Berkeley

  MCMV

  Yes

  No

  No

  Bicester

  MCMV

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Birmingham

  T42

  Yes

  No

  No

  Blazer

  Fast training boat

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Brocklesby

  MCMV

  Yes

  No

  No

  Cardiff

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cattistock

  MCMV

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Chiddingfold

  MCMV

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dasher

  Fast training boat

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Edinburgh

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Endurance

  Ice patrol ship

  Yes

  No

  No

  Fearless

  Landing platform dock

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Glasgow

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Gloucester

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Grafton

  T23

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Grimsby

  Mine hunter

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Guernsey

  Patrol vessel

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Hurworth

  MCMV

  Yes

  No

  No

  Illustrious

  Aircraft carrier

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Intrepid

  Landing platform dock

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Invincible

  Aircraft carrier

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Iron Duke

  T23

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Leeds Castle

  Patrol vessel

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lindisfarne

  Patrol vessel

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Liverpool

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Manchester

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Marlborough

  T23

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Middleton

  MCMV

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Newcastle

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Pembroke

  MCMV

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Puncher

  Fast training boat

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Pursuer

  Fast training boat

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Quorn

  MCMV

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Raider

  Fast training boat

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Richmond

  T23

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Shetland

  Patrol vessel

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Southampton

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Tracker

  Fast training boat

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Westminster

  T23

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  York

  T42

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  1 MCMV mine counter measures vessel

  402W
  their case known through the chain of command, direct, to their commanding officer, medical officer or padre if they do not feel that the initial support offered is adequate.

  All three Services have been required, since December 1997, to record and submit quarterly returns to the Ministry of Defence detailing all formal complaints to the chain of command of sexual and racial discrimination and bullying. The details of each complaint record whether the specific complaint is physical or verbal in nature. There are some differences between the Services in the way that information is recorded, and some of the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information that is available is being collated. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the House.

  Warships (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Navy warships in Portsmouth Harbour at 0900 hours on(a) 2 January, (b) 9 January and (c) 16 January. [104925]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following Royal Navy warships were scheduled to be in Portsmouth harbour on the specified dates:

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency. [105623]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West

  Requirement1,2

  Trained strength3

  +/-

  All ranks—Fast Jet

  882

  857

  -25

  All ranks—Multi Engine/Rotary Wing

  1,315

  1,360

  +45

  Total

  2,197

  2,217

  +20

  Junior Officer Pilot4—Fast Jet

  554

  459

  -95

  1 Includes non-flying posts for which aircrew experience and knowledge are required. The majority of these non-flying posts require senior officers.

  2 1 April 2000.

  3 1 December 1999.

  4 Flight lieutenant (and squadron leader specialist aircrew) and below included in all ranks total. This is the RAF's most critical manning category.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many qualified(a) fast jet and (b) support aircraft RAF pilots are currently undertaking non-flying duties. [105619]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of qualified pilots who, on 1 December 1999, were not filling specific flying appointments, was as follows:

  Number

  All ranks—Fast Jet

  298

  All ranks—Multi Engine and Rotary Wing

  428

  Total

  726

  These pilots were either filling ground appointments or were on approved Manning and Training Margin activity, which included those undertaking further flying training.

  Cancelled Military Activities
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the eight(a) NATO and (b) UN exercises that went ahead without the planned UK participation; [105617]

  (2) if he will list the deployments and exercises cancelled in the 1999–2000 financial year to help (a) alleviate overstretch and (b) achieve financial savings. [105616]

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

  Greater London Defence Estates Study
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Greater London Defence Estates Study will be completed. [105621]

  Mr. Spellar
  The initial phase of the strategic review of MOD's estate in the London area identified several proposals which could lead to further estate being vacated. Since then, in a still ongoing second phase of work, the
  404W
  (Ms Squire) on 26 October 1999, Official Report, column 768W.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how under strength the RAF is with regard to qualified(a) fast jet and (b) support aircraft pilots. [105620]

  Mr. Spellar
  The position is as follows:

  current users of the estate have been undertaking detailed studies to verify the validity of these proposals and we expect to be able to announce some of the results arising from this work later this year.

  Our review of the Estate in London, as elsewhere, is constantly evolving and in the case of the London Study there will be a further phase of work (Phase III) to take forward the implementation of the current work as well as to review the potential for further rationalisation of the London Estate.

  War Stocks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the inquiry into war stocks will be completed. [105622]

  Mr. Spellar
  Cm 3999 (The Strategic Defence Review) indicated that we would be looking at the longer-term scope for reducing the war reserves of ammunition and guided weapons as a result of longer post-Cold War readiness preparation times. A review of war reserves of key munitions and guided weapons is expected to be completed this year. Stockpiles of munitions will then be reviewed on a regular basis as part of the normal departmental planning process.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the enlargement of the EU following the Helsinki Council meeting. [104204]

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the European Union enlargement process. [104205]
  405W
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the enlargement of the EU following the Helsinki Council meeting. [104217]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Helsinki European Council agreed to invite six more countries to open negotiations in February and decided that Turkey is a candidate for membership. The European Council agreed that the EU should have institutional reforms in place and be in a position to welcome new Member States from the end of 2002. The UK fully supports these developments.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Poland and Hungary to become full members of the European Union; and what assessment he has made of the implications for the Common Agricultural Policy. [104202]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Helsinki European Council in December agreed that the EU will make every effort to be able to receive new members from 2002. Poland and Hungary, like other applicant countries, have been making good progress in their preparations for enlargement. We want these countries to join the European Union as soon as they are able to meet the obligations of membership. It is too early to say when this will be.

  Poland and Hungary both have significant agricultural sectors. Their membership will strengthen the case for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which the UK supports.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, when he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union, they discussed matters relating to the enlargement of the EU and the timetable for the acceptance of the applicant states. [104207]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed enlargement of the EU with his colleagues at the Helsinki European Council in December. The European Council agreed that the EU will make every effort to be able to receive new members from 2002. Applicant states have been making good progress in their preparations for enlargement. We want these countries to join the European Union as soon as they are able to meet the obligations of membership. It is too early to say when this will be.

  Africa
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States over recent developments in Africa. [104209]

  Mr. Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), column 678.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the efforts to find a settlement for the situation in Cyprus. [104210]
  406W
  Mr. Vaz
  We warmly welcomed the launch of UN proximity talks in New York in December preparing for the negotiations of a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

  We strongly endorse the UN Secretary-General's intention to continue these talks early this year and will give him every support in his efforts.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future status of the Falkland Islands. [104211]

  Mr. Battle
  We have good relations with the Government of Argentina. Former President Menem's visit to Britain assisted in the process of reconciliation and paved the way for the agreement of last July resolving communications with the Falkland Islands and co-operation on fish stocks in the South Atlantic. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary invited the Foreign Minister of the new Government to visit Britain and hopes to meet him next week in the margins of an international conference.

  Indonesia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made over the future territorial integrity of Indonesia. [104212]

  Mr. Battle
  The statement by the EU Presidency on the situation in Aceh on 26 November 1999 makes it clear that we wish to see a peaceful resolution of separatist tensions in Indonesia. The EU supports in particular an inclusive dialogue between all concerned.

  Drugs Trade
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken to combat the drugs trade, with particular reference to Latin America. [104213]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), columns 474–75.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has held with elected representatives of the people of Chechnya. [104214]

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

  EU (Trade and Finance)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in co-operation with EU partners over matters of trade and finance in the past 12 months. [104215]
  407W
  Mr. Vaz
  We have been working closely with our EU partners to improve the functioning of the EU economy—work that will help to increase employment and prosperity throughout the 15 member states. That policy approach is outlined in the Presidency Conclusions from the Cologne and Helsinki European Councils.

  Palestinian Refugees
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Palestinian refugees in(a) Gaza, (b) the West Bank and (c) elsewhere in the Middle East, indicating the assistance Her Majesty's Government have given since 1969. [104216]

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Palestinian refugees. [104218]

  Mr. Hain
  At the end of 1998 the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) were caring for 790,000 refugees registered in the Gaza Strip, 560,000 in the West Bank and 2,220,000 elsewhere in the Middle East.

  Through our bilateral contribution to UNRWA and our share of EU funding, we are the largest EU contributor to UNRWA, and the second largest contributor globally (second only to the US), so we make a very significant contribution to alleviating the condition of Palestinian refugees.

  The status of Palestinian refugees is also of great importance, and among the main issues to be resolved in negotiations between the countries of the region. The Government have repeatedly made clear their concern for the Palestinian refugees. The Foreign Secretary visited Deir al-Balah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip on 25 October, and will tomorrow visit the Beqaa refugee camp in Jordan.

  Russia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to discuss with his Russian counterpart attacks on Jewish people and their property in Russia. [104219]

  Mr. Keith Vaz
  Anti-semitism and other human rights issues are regular subjects of discussion in my meetings with my Russian counterpart. My officials also raised our concerns on anti-semitism in the recent annual UK/Russia human rights talks in London.

  We will continue to be active on this issue.

  Iran
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Government of Iran on the 13 Jews arrested on charges of espionage. [104220]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the cases of those detained on espionage charges, including 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community, with Foreign Minister Kharrazi during his visit from 10–12 January. Dr. Kharrazi assured them both that those detained would receive a fair trial including access to families and legal representation.
  408W
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of the Russian Federation relating to the supply of missile-related goods and technology to Iran. [104771]

  Mr. Hain
  We are concerned that a number of Russian companies and institutions may have exported missile-related goods and technology to Iran. This would not be consistent with Russia's commitments under the terms of the conventions and export control regimes of which she is a member.

  We regularly discuss these concerns with the Government of the Russian Federation, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

  During the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Russia from 3–5 March 1999, he discussed the dangers of exporting weapons and related technology to the Middle East.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on Iran's ability to produce missiles with a range of more than 500 miles. [104768]

  Mr. Hain
  In conjunction with other government departments we regularly assess Iran's ability to produce long range ballistic missiles, drawing on numerous sources.

  We and our EU partners remain concerned by Iran's development of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile, with a range of 1300kms. We regularly engage the Iranian authorities on proliferation issues and have urged Iran to refrain from the further development of such missiles, while understanding Iran's legitimate security concerns.

  We are aware that Iran has ambitions to develop a satellite launch vehicle capability.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran since the testing of the Shahab-3 missile in July 1999. [104855]

  Mr. Hain
  We have established regular dialogue with the Government of Iran on non-proliferation issues. During our contacts, while mindful of legitimate Iranian security concerns, we have repeatedly stressed the importance we attach to global efforts to limit the development of long range ballistic missiles, and shall continue to do so.

  During the official visit to the UK of the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Kamal Kharrazi from 10–12 January, Dr. Kharrazi and the Secretary of State agreed to continue dialogue on bilateral, regional and international political issues.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what intelligence reports he has received regarding the range, payload capacity and purpose of the Shahab-4 missile currently under development in Iran. [104857]

  Mr. Hain
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East will understand the security constraints that prevent us from discussing intelligence reporting.
  409W
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his assessment of Iran's capability to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their delivery systems without outside help. [104854]

  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 Toxin Weapons Convention. We continue to encourage Iran to respect these treaties and to comply fully with its obligations under them.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the evidence of the involvement of Hamas in terrorism and (b) the threat from Hamas to UK interests. [104859]

  Mr. Battle
  Any such assessment of Hamas's involvement could only be made from intelligence sources and would, therefore, be exempted from disclosure under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Hamas leaders have repeatedly stated publicly that their area of activity is Israel and that they have no policy of attacking external interests. UK interests are therefore not directly targeted, although we condemn terrorism in all its forms and at whomever it is directed.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the evidence concerning financial links between Iran and Hamas; and if he will make a statement. [104858]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government and our EU colleagues have frequently raised with the Iranians our concerns about their support for groups who use violent methods to oppose the Middle East Peace Process and will continue to do so. Any assessment by HMG of the extent of the financial links could only come from intelligence and is, therefore, exempted from disclosure under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the range of the Shahab-3 missile tested by Iran in July 1999 and of the countries that fall within its range. [104856]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly discuss proliferation issues with Iran and have frequently expressed our concern about Iranian attempts to develop ballistic missile systems. We remain particularly concerned by Iran's development of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile, with a range of 1,300kms and therefore capable of reaching any of the neighbouring countries within this range. Such a system could pose a threat to stability in the region.
  410W
  Iran is not the only country in the region to possess such technology, and we understand Iran's legitimate security concerns. However we continue to urge Iran to refrain from the development of ballistic missiles.

  Iraq
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relationship with Iraq. [104221]

  Mr. Hain
  As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, our relationship with Iraq is governed by the need to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Security Council resolutions. The most recent of these is SCR 1284, adopted on 17 December, after months of negotiations led by the UK. SCR 1284 establishes a new platform for the UN's dealings with Iraq, with provisions covering disarmament, humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues. Our priority now is its implementation.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [104222]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcome the recent progress in the resumption of talks on the Syrian track. Progress will undoubtedly be hard work, but both sides have already shown a high degree of commitment to intensive talks and we hope a just and lasting agreement will follow.

  Implementation of the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum by the Israelis and Palestinians is proceeding again, after a short hiatus. We wish both parties every success in their negotiations towards a Framework Agreement for Permanent Status, due in February. The United Kingdom will support them in any way it can in their search for an agreement.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards Montenegro. [104223]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Montenegro. [104225]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK Government are keeping a close eye on the situation in Montenegro. We continue to support the reformist and democratic Government of President Djukanovic and will work with our EU partners to encourage the extension of the culture of democracy in Montenegro to the whole of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for treaty changes he plans to place on the agenda at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference. [104224]

  Mr. Keith Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), columns 668–69.

  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the expected contents of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [104226]

  Mr. Keith Vaz
  The Charter drafting body has only just started its work. The first meeting on 17 December 1999 was largely procedural. The next meeting on 1–2 February will be the first opportunity to discuss substance, though exchanges at this stage are likely to be fairly general. But the conclusions of the Cologne European council in June 1999 provide an indication of the ground that might be covered.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has received a copy of the report of the US Director of Central Intelligence made to the US Congress on 2 February 1999 on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions; and if he will make a statement on its contents. [104782]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is aware of the report referred to by my hon. Friend, but did not receive a copy.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Russian Government about the role Russian companies are playing in the construction of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr, Iran; and what assurances he has sought to ensure that the plant is purely for civilian use. [104785]

  Mr. Vaz
  In March 1999 my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed with Foreign Minister Ivanov the dangers of arms exports and technology assistance to countries of concern. Officials also raise these concerns, including the specific case of Bushehr, during regular meetings with the Russians on export control and strategic stability issues. The Russians assure us that their assistance for Bushehr is limited to civil nuclear applications and subject to IAEA safeguards. We are watching the situation closely.

  State-sponsored Terrorism
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what data his Department compiles on countries which sponsor terrorist organisations; and if he will publish it. [104770]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government condemn state sponsorship of terrorism and monitor closely any evidence of such activities. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes the responsible Governments aware of our concerns when they arise. The information the hon. Member asks to be published is, however, exempted from disclosure under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ethiopia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the 412W
  Government are taking to encourage the Ethiopian administration to accept the technical arrangements for the implementation of the framework agreement to resolve the conflict with Eritrea. [104804]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made it clear to Ethiopia and Eritrea that we and the international community want an early and negotiated settlement to this conflict. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I underlined this message in meetings with the Ethiopian Foreign Minister on 9 December.

  Since then, the Ethiopian Government has received from the Organisation of African Unity clarification of several queries about the Technical Arrangements. We now await a response from the Government.

  France
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Government of France; and if he will make a statement. [105010]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary next plans to meet Foreign Minister M. Hubert Vedrine at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 24 January. I met members of the French Government at the Franco—British colloque on 14 January.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the British Embassy in Paris in easing the plight of British hauliers in France. [105011]

  Mr. Vaz
  During the recent road haulier's dispute in France, the British Embassy in Paris was in regular contact with the French authorities at both the national and local levels. Their aim was to encourage an early end to the dispute and to ensure the safety and well-being of British drivers. The Embassy also provided regular updates and advice on the situation in France to the Road Hauliers Association and the Freight Transport Association in the UK, to British drivers stranded in France, and to Government Ministries in Whitehall. The Freight Transport Association has thanked the Embassy for their advice and assistance.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last spoke to a representative of the Government of France; and if he will make a statement. [105009]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with Foreign Minister M. Hubert Vedrine and maintains a dialogue with him on a wide range of issues of mutual interest. I also meet my counterpart, M. Pierre Moscovici, regularly.

  Libyan Scud Missiles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he was first informed of the discovery at Gatwick Airport of scud missile parts en route to Libya; and what considerations underlay the timing of the release of information on the matter to the media. [105080]
  413W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 326W.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the constituencies visited by the "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow; and how the destinations were chosen. [105693]

  Mr. Vaz
  I visited Newcastle, Hull, Rotherham, Manchester, Bristol, Bath, Nuneaton, Birmingham and Leicester, each of which is a regional centre of population. This covered the constituencies of: Sedgefield; Tyne Bridge; Gateshead and Washington, East; Houghton and Washington, East; Hull, North; Rotherham; Manchester, Central; Wythenshawe and Sale, East; Bristol, South; Bath; Nuneaton; Birmingham Ladywood and Leicester, South. In each town or city we visited a variety of venues to meet a broad spectrum of society. This included calls on EU funded projects and visits to companies, schools and universities. All local Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament were informed of my visit and given the opportunity to participate.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the European Court of Justice has completed the review of its operations and procedures; and if he will place a copy of the review in the Library. [105720]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Court of Justice submitted a paper to the Council of Ministers on 10 May putting forward ideas on the future of the European Union's judicial system. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library.

  The proposed reforms are designed to improve the workings of the Court, including greater flexibility in the application of the Court's Rules of procedure to facilitate the handling of complex or urgent cases. The proposals should therefore allow the Court to cope more quickly and efficiently with its ever increasing workload.

  Some of the proposed reforms would require Treaty change. These might be considered by member states either as part of the IGC or in parallel process.

  International Criminal Court
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on establishing an International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement. [104198]

  Mr. Hain
  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998. Since then 92 States, including the UK, have signed the Statute and six have ratified. The Court will be established once 60 States have ratified. A Preparatory Commission is making good progress on drafting important subsidiary documents to the Statute.

  India (UK Citizens)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received 414W
  about United Kingdom citizens experiencing difficulties in arranging for funds to be remitted from bank accounts in India to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [104901]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: We are aware of the difficulties faced by UK citizens in remitting funds from India. High Commission staff in India are active in assisting UK citizens in this process. We recognise, however, that this can often be a lengthy process which is bound by the relevant Indian exchange regulations.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the(a) Government of Sri Lanka and (b) Tamil forces on the resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka. [104908]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: We remain deeply concerned about the tragic conflict in Sri Lanka and believe that a lasting solution can be reached only through a political settlement. We continue to explore with a wide range of contacts ways of achieving this.

  Pursuant to my previous answer to my hon. Friend on 6 December 1999, Official Report, column 401W, we have made clear to both sides our readiness to help if asked.

PRIME MINISTER

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those areas identified by EU member states for discussion of extension of qualified majority voting at the next InterGovernmental Conference. [105541]

  The Prime Minister
  The Helsinki European Council confirmed that the possible extension of qualified majority voting will be on the agenda for the next IGC. Formal proposals for individual articles will only be made during the IGC, which will begin next month.

  Iranian Foreign Minister
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. [105340]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: I welcomed Dr. Kharrazi as the first Iranian Minister to visit the United Kingdom since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. I stressed the importance we attach to continuing the development of the relationship between the UK and Iran, as a major country in an area of strategic importance to the UK.

  Dr. Kharrazi and I agreed that relations between the UK and Iran should be based on co-operation and mutual trust.

  There of course remain areas of concern for both sides. I raised with Dr. Kharrazi the continued detention of 13 members of the Jewish community in Iran. Dr. Kharrazi assured me that those detained would receive a fair and open trial, including access to visitors and legal

  415W
  representation. I also mentioned our concern that Iranian commitments on Salman Rushdie's safety should be upheld.

  Mike Tyson
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he and his Office received, and from whom, about the case of Mr. Mike Tyson. [105715]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray), asked me a Question on the floor of the House on 12 January 2000,Official Report, column 271. Neither I nor my Office have received any other representations on this matter.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  House of Lords
  Angela Smith
  To ask the President of the Council when the report of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords will be published. [105603]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the Royal Commission proposes to publish its Report on Thursday 20 January. Copies of the Report will be placed in the Library of the House after publication.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [104480]

  Mr. Morley
  No extra bonuses were paid to core-MAFF, Pesticides Safety Directorate, Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, Central Science Laboratory, Meat Hygiene Service, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and Intervention Board Executive Agency staff working over the New Year period. Staff working, or on-call, during this period received enhanced rates of overtime, travel time and on-call allowances. Claims are still being received and it is therefore not possible at this stage to say how many staff in total benefited from these arrangements.

  The Veterinary Laboratory Agency also adopted the same arrangements but, in addition, paid a £100 bonus to staff working between 11.00 pm on 31 December 1999 to 4.00 am on 1 January 2000. Again, claims are still being received and it is not possible at this stage to say how many staff in total benefited from the bonus payment.

  Biocides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the health implications of the cocktail effect of exposure to several different types of biocides; [104526]
  416W
  (2) what steps he takes to protect citizens from the cocktail effect of exposure to several different types of biocides. [104525]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: The possibility of interactions with other pesticides is considered before approval is given to a particular pesticide. Possible synergistic effects of the joint toxicity of pesticide active ingredients are addressed by requesting data on the toxicity of new pesticide products that contain more than one active ingredient.

  The pesticide regulatory authorities have also examined more broadly the possibility of synergistic effects of pesticides several times. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides considered the matter in the early 1990s and advised that possible interactions of pesticides were at worst additive rather than synergistic. In 1994 MAFF commissioned a literature review of the possible synergistic effects of mixes of active ingredients. The results of this review supported the Advisory Committee's earlier conclusion.

  More recently, the interaction between the effects of chemicals was also considered by the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment as part of their review of organophosphates. The Committee advised that interactions resulting from altered metabolism are, in general, only important at relatively high exposure levels, since at low levels there is usually sufficient metabolic capacity to cope with the multiple exposures with efficient detoxification and elimination of all compounds.

  Beta Carotene
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the safety of the additive beta carotene, with particular reference to the concentrations available in soft drink products. [104529]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Beta carotene is naturally present in a wide variety of foods. It is also added to foods as a means of providing additional Vitamin A to consumers (it is converted to Vitamin A in the body). In addition, it may be used as a food colour.

  There is no evidence that the amounts consumed by adults and children from food are harmful. However, the UK Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals will be reviewing the safety of this substance later this year as part of a wide ranging study of the safety of vitamins and minerals generally. In addition, the EU Scientific Committee for Food is currently considering the safety aspects of its use as a colour. Intakes from this latter source are however low compared to its use as a source of Vitamin A and its natural occurrence.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to ensure that products that do not meet United Kingdom quality and animal welfare standards are labelled accordingly. [105111]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Consumers who wish to support British quality and animal welfare standards tell us they actively choose foods which

  417W
  are marked as British. Following concerns that such labelling can sometimes mislead, we have consulted a wide range of interested parties on strengthened guidance aimed at ensuring that country of origin markings on food labels do not mislead consumers about the true origin of the ingredients that have been used. Officials will be discussing the responses with some of those consulted on 19 January and an announcement will be made shortly thereafter.

  Organic Farming (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of land in Lancashire are used for organic farming. [105034]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: From the information available to us, some 2,500 hectares in Lancashire are fully organic or are in conversion to organic farming.

  Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs and meat processing plants have closed in the last year for which figures are available. [103355]

  Ms Quin
  The Meat Hygiene and Inspection Regulations provide for licences to be revoked for a number of different reasons. These include where premises either fail to comply with hygiene requirements or cease operating for commercial reasons; and where the nature of the business has changed. In Great Britain, 39 abattoirs and 58 cutting premises producing fresh meat or poultry meat had their licences revoked between 1 November 1998 and 30 October 1999. Details of licence revocations are published in the Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House each month.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 541W, on GM crops, if he will identify the evidence with which he has been provided concerning the quantities of GM pollen found in honey, indicating that on which he bases his assessment that such quantities are very small; [102841]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1999, Official Report, column 541W, on GM crops, what consultations he has held with consumers on the acceptability of traces of GM pollen in honey, indicating the (a) dates and (b) manner of the consultation, and the advice he received; [102829]

  (3) pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1999, Official Report, column 541W, on GM crops, if he has carried out an economic analysis of the impact of United Kingdom honey containing GM pollen on the British beekeeping and honey industry; [102830]

  (4) pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1999, Official Report, column 541W, on GM crops, if he will list the research on which both ACRE and ACNFP based their advice to him that they do not consider the presence in honey of pollen from GM crops to pose a risk to health; [102831]
  418W
  (5) pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1999, Official Report, column 541W, on GM crops, what consultations he has held with beekeepers on the acceptability of traces of GM pollen in honey, indicating (a) the organisations and individuals he consulted, (b) the dates of meetings and (c) the advice given to him. [102832]

  Ms Quin
  All GM crops intended for deliberate release in this country, and indeed in the rest of the European Community, are thoroughly assessed for human and environmental safety in accordance with the requirements of EC Directive 90/220 before they are allowed to be planted. This assessment, which is carried out in the UK by ACRE, includes the safety implications of any exposure to pollen through ingestion or inhalation.

  The ACNFP considered the issue of GM pollen in honey at a workshop held in 1991 and concluded that the safeguards provided by ACRE and other Government advisory committees were adequate. The Committee also concluded that the ingestion of protein from pollen in honey was likely to be very small, typically around 0.00007 g to 0.003 g per day, and did not give rise to any health concerns. A copy of the 1991 and 1992 ACNFP Annual Reports which contain the conclusions of this workshop are available in the Library of the House.

  Since then, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist has undertaken research on the pollen content of honey, at MAFF's request, and has confirmed that levels of GM protein are likely to be several orders of magnitude lower than previously thought. It estimated that consumers would ingest at most no more than 30 picogrammes (0.00000000003 g) to 5 nanogrammes (0.000000005 g) of transgenic protein in every 500 g of honey. The report of this research has been available in the MAFF Library since its completion but I am now arranging for it to be deposited in the Library of the House. In addition to this work, the British Honey Importers and Packers Association report on their website that they have found no traces of GM material in any of the honey they have tested to date. As a result of all these findings we see no reason to undertake an economic analysis of the impact of United Kingdom honey containing GM pollen on the British beekeeping and honey industry.

  My noble Friend the Minister of State (Baroness Hayman) has not held consultations with consumers or beekeepers on the acceptability of traces of GM pollen in honey, however, officials hold regular meetings with representatives from the beekeeping industry and honey producers and importers to discuss issues of mutual concern including the development of GM crops. The last such meeting took place on 10 November.

  The ACNFP has an independent member, representing consumer interests, who would be consulted on any changes to the Committee's view on the acceptability of traces of GM pollen in honey. Consumers' organisations, along with other interested parties, were consulted on the recent EC proposals to introduce a threshold of 1 per cent. for the adventitious contamination of non GM soya and maize, in respect of the labelling of food and food ingredients.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is routinely available to him on NHS waiting lists for(a) all services that are not normally consultant-led and (b) audiology. [104310]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is available on National Health Service waiting lists only for services which are consultant led. In audiological medicine, 61 per cent. of patients were seen within 13 weeks and 80 per cent. within 26 weeks of being referred by their general practitioner.

  Monthly inpatient waiting list data by Regional Office area (NHS Trust based)

  Month

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  October 1998

  142,168

  115,061

  106,860

  185,121

  134,756

  195,053

  203,211

  111,253

  1,193,483

  November 1998

  138,213

  112,850

  103,339

  180,827

  131,285

  187,694

  198,384

  109,470

  1,162,062

  December 1998

  141,051

  114,165

  104,034

  183,880

  132,574

  187,032

  199,645

  111,217

  1,173,598

  January 1999

  139,347

  113,825

  104,406

  183,452

  130,769

  183,990

  194,341

  109,238

  1,159,368

  February 1999

  134,787

  110,522

  99,226

  177,445

  126,057

  176,238

  188,695

  106,700

  1,119,670

  March 1999

  128,527

  106,552

  93,581

  171,694

  119,889

  167,783

  181,122

  103,712

  1,072,860

  April 1999

  133,013

  106,546

  95,448

  173,838

  121,915

  169,967

  185,479

  106,388

  1,092,594

  May 1999

  133,017

  107,342

  95,830

  174,515

  122,842

  170,096

  186,181

  106,274

  1,096,097

  June 1999

  134,650

  106,851

  96,056

  174,323

  121,546

  169,894

  184,120

  106,811

  1,094,251

  July 1999

  133,766

  105,446

  96,109

  173,900

  120,784

  168,529

  185,715

  107,286

  1,091,535

  August 1999

  134,255

  104,082

  96,053

  174,517

  118,860

  167,887

  185,271

  107,944

  1,088,869

  September 1999

  133,343

  103,763

  97,204

  173,255

  118,517

  167,338

  184,587

  106,522

  1,084,529

  October 1999

  133,301

  102,720

  96,141

  171,980

  118,269

  167,078

  184,378

  105,581

  1,079,448

  Respiratory Illnesses
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans are in place to cope with a possible increase in respiratory-associated illnesses in elderly people this winter. [104165]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local Winter Planning Groups (LWPG) were established in April 1999 to co-ordinate the planning and provision of health and social care services over the winter and the millennium. Each LWPG includes health authorities, social services, National Health Service trusts, primary care groups, out-of-hours and deputising services, NHS Direct, police and fire services, the voluntary and private sector, community health councils and other local authority departments.

  As part of the planning process LWPG's were required to submit robust plans at the end of September 1999 setting out how services would respond to increased winter demand including that linked to respiratory-associated illnesses. The plans, which were assessed by the NHS regional offices, together with visits to a number of health authorities, showed a high state of readiness for the winter.

  Many viruses contribute to respiratory-associated illness in older people in the winter and influenza is the only one we have an effective vaccine against. In 1998, we extended the annual immunisation programme for influenza to offer free flu vaccine to everyone aged 75 and over. Flu immunisation was well publicised. The Chief Medical Officer launched "Flu Awareness Week" at a press conference in October which resulted in widespread media coverage and provided a useful opportunity to get
  420W
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the last year for which figures are available, how many people in each NHS region on NHS waiting lists are aged(a) under 29, (b) 30 to 49, (c) 50 to 64, (d) 65 to 74, (e) 75 to 84 and (f) 85 years and over. [103955]

  Mr. Denham
  Data are not collected by age group on the number of patients in each National Health Service region currently on National Health Service waiting lists. The total number of patients on NHS waiting lists is, however, collected by each region and is shown in the table.

  key messages across. Many health authorities also took an active role in promoting flu immunisation locally last year.

  Also, as part of planning for this winter, NHS Trust have arrangements in place to provide more intensive care and high dependency beds than ever before.

  Informing the public of the range of healthcare options available and encouraging them to use the appropriate service has also been a key component of planning for the winter. General campaigns of particular relevance to older people have been: "Keep Warm, Keep Well" which provides advice to older and other vulnerable people on how to keep themselves and their homes warm in winter and "Choose the Right Remedy this Winter" which encourages the public to consider all the options open to them when they are unwell such as self care, pharmacy, and NHS Direct.

  The NHS and local authorities have planned well for this winter and the current peaks in demand are being managed.

  Transplants
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in the last year for which figures are available, how many people in each NHS region who have received heart transplants are aged(a) under 29, (b) 30 to 49, (c) 50 to 59, (d) 60 to 74 and (e) 75 years and over; [103953]

  (2) how many people in each NHS region who have received renal transplants in the last year for which figures are available are aged (a) under 29, (b) 30 to 49, (c) 50 to 64, (d) 65 to 74, (e) 75 to 84 and (f) 85 years and over; [103949]
  421W
  (3) in the last year for which figures are available, how many people in each NHS region who are waiting for renal transplants are aged (a) under 29, (b) 30 to 49, (c) 50 to 64, (d) 65 to 74, (e) 75 to 84 and (f) 85 years and over; [103954]

  (4) in the last year for which figures are available, how many people in each NHS region who are waiting for heart transplants are aged (a) under 29, (b) 30 to 49, (c) 50 to 59, (d) 60 to 74 and (e) 75 years and over. [103952]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested on the questions has been placed in the Library.

  Neurology Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide additional funding to treat people with neurological conditions; and if he will make a statement. [104581]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to provide additional funding over and above the extra resources currently being provided to the National Health Service to treat people with neurological conditions.

  Under the present system it is, of course, for health authorities and primary care groups to plan and arrange the services to people in their care. They are closest to the patients and best placed to respond sensitively to their needs.

  National Beds Inquiry
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the findings of the National Beds Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [105064]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Beds Inquiry is nearing completion. Its findings will be published shortly.

  Bed Occupancy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has given to health authorities concerning bed occupancy rates in NHS hospitals. [104900]

  Ms Stuart
  No specific guidance has been issued. However, an analysis of the research into the relationship between bed occupancy and the management of elective and emergency pressures was set out in the first report of the Emergency Services Action Team in 1997, and referred to in subsequent ESAT reports. The report was published under cover of an Executive Letter (MISC 97/62), which followed the guidance on Access to Secondary Care Services set out in Executive Letter (EL97/42). Copies of the reports and both ELs are in the Library.

  Mental Health
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if paragraph 30 of the Local Government Ombudsman's report 98/B/0341 setting out the Department's view in March 1997 on section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 still represents the Department's view; [104988]

  (2) if he will list the local authorities that charge for residential services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; [104986]
  422W
  (3) from what date he determined that local authorities should not charge for residential services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [104987]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no provisions in the Mental Health Act 1983 to charge for after-care services provided under section 117. The Act does not specify which services should be provided for a patient who qualifies for after-care under section 117. In the absence of case law on this subject before the High Court's ruling on 28 July 1999, there has been variation in practice between local authorities on the issue of whether residential care provided for patients who qualify for after-care under section 117 was considered to be provided under section 117 or under other statutes.

  The Department has not issued formal guidance on this issue but advice in response to questions on this point has consistently been that, where residential care is provided as part of a package of services under section 117, then it should not be charged for. This is in line with paragraph 30 of the Local Ombudsman's report 98/B/0341 in so far as it deals with not charging for section 117 after-care services. The Department does not have information about which local authorities currently charge for such services.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate what savings there would be to public funds if those entitled to free residential care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983(a) were disallowed from receiving income support residential allowance and (b) had their benefit income reduced by other means. [104985]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. The Department does not collect information on the specific legislation under which placements in residential care or nursing home are made.

  Internet (Medicinal Drug Sales)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives his Department has taken(a) unilaterally and (b) in partnership with other members of the EU to prevent problems arising from the unrestricted sale of medicinal drugs on the Internet. [104825]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medicine Control Agency investigates cases referred to it of alleged breaches of medicines legislation arising from the internet. It works closely with the European Union and international regulatory and enforcement bodies and will continue to do so. The European Commission has established a group to consider the impact of e-commerce in pharmaceuticals on the existing safeguards to patients. The United Kingdom will be playing an active role in its deliberations.

  NHS Beds
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available for patient care in the NHS on 1 May in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and how many of these were acute beds. [105636]

  Ms Stuart
  The average daily number of available beds is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England", copies of which are in the Library. The latest information is for 1997–98.

  NHS Manpower
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed directly by the NHS in(a) medical positions, (b) administrative positions and (c) in total, as at (i) 1 January 1997 and (ii) 1 January 2000. [105213]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about numbers of staff employed directly by the National Health Service is not collected in January of each year. Information about numbers of staff employed directly by the National Health Service on 30 September in the last three years for which data are available is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services: all directly employed staff in England as at 30 September for each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  1996

  1997

  1998

  All directly employed staff

  761,240

  758,060

  765,950

  Medical staff

  51,780

  54,640

  56,270

  Administration and estates staff

  167,430

  166,960

  167,700

  Other

  542,030

  536,460

  541,970

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

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

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances people who, through ill health, require nursing care have to pay for accommodation in nursing homes. [105565]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance issued by the Department to health authorities in 1995 set out a national framework against which health authorities, in consultation with local authorities, were required to review their existing arrangements for continuing health care and to draw up local policies and eligibility criteria for individual case decisions about the need for National Health Service funded care. This includes the range, location and level of services which will be arranged and funded by the NHS to meet continuing health care needs in their area.

  We are currently reviewing continuing care policy with a view to issuing revised guidance later this year.

  Local authority social services have always had a very important role in supporting people, either in their own homes or in residential care. Where a person is provided with nursing home or residential care accommodation by a local authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 22 of that Act provides for them to be charged for the accommodation.

  The Royal Commission on Long-Term Care recommended changes to the charging system. Decisions on the system of funding long-term care will be taken as part of the current spending review.

  Myxoedema
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is given to student doctors in diagnosing myxoedema; what treatment is recommended for this disease; and if he will make a statement. [105290]
  424W
  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for the content and standards of medical education is shared between the regulatory bodies (eg The General Medical Council and Specialist Training Authority), professional bodies (notably the medical Royal Colleges) and universities. It is neither practicable nor desirable for the Government to prescribe the exact training that any individual doctor will receive.

  The recommended maintenance treatment for myxoedema is replacement thyroid hormone. Thyroxine sodium tablets is the normal maintenance therapy but in severe cases Liothyronine sodium tablets or injection may be used for a rapid response.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will receive the state second pension(a) when it is introduced and (b) at each five year interval following its introduction over the next 20 years. [104092]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the first year of introduction, no one will receive payment of State Second Pension, although individuals will begin to accrue entitlement to it.

  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the number of individuals who will receive State Second Pension for specific years following its introduction.

  The following table shows very broad brush estimates of the numbers who will benefit from State Second Pension. These are subject to uncertainty and possible subsequent revision.

  Numbers benefiting from State Second Pension at the end of the financial year

  Year

  Million

  2003–04

  0.3

  2008–09

  2.1

  2013–14

  4.0

  2018–19

  5.5

  2023–24

  7.5

  Notes:

  1. The numbers given are the estimated numbers of individuals who will benefit from State Second Pension at the end of each year. For example, with the first year of awards being 2003–04, the entry in the table headed 2003–04 shows the number of beneficiaries after the first full year of awards.

  2. Numbers for 2003–04 and 2008–09 have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million. Numbers for later years are rounded to the nearest 0.5 million.

  3. Figures include people who would receive State Second Pension payments as well as those receiving contracted-out pensions where they have benefited from higher contracted-out rebates than would have applied under SERPS.

  4. The figures exclude those higher earning individuals who are contracted-out and whose rebates would be the same under State Second Pension as under SERPS, since such individuals would not benefit from awards of State Second Pension, nor would they gain from any increase in contracted-out rebates.

  Departmental Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the publication dates of statistics to be released by his Department and agencies in this calendar year. [104599]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information in the table relates to

  Title

  Period of issue

  Period ending

  Date of release

  Imminent publications

  Cross Benefit Analysis Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of working age on key benefits

  Quarterly

  May 1999

  13 January 2000

  Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and indices of prices and earnings

  Annual

  April 1999

  27 January 2000

  Cross Benefit Analysis for Pensioners of the Population over State Retirement Age

  Bi-annual

  May 1998

  27 January 2000

  Pensioners Income Series 1997–98

  Annual

  1997–98

  27 January 2000

  Statistical summary

  Quarterly

  December 1999

  27 January 2000

  Tax Benefit Model Tables

  Annual

  June 1999

  27 January 2000

  Provisional publication dates

  Child's Special Allowance

  Annual

  December 1999

  February 2000

  Housing Benefit Summary Statistics

  Quarterly

  May 1999

  February 2000

  Retirement Pensions Summary of Statistics

  Bi-annual

  September 1999

  February 2000

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  10 February 2000

  Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance

  Quarterly

  August 1999

  17 February 2000

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  24 February 2000

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit—quarterly summary of statistics on new claims (accidents and prescribed diseases) and first diagnoses (prescribed diseases only)

  Quarterly

  September 1999

  24 February 2000

  Jobseekers allowance statistics—quarterly inquiry

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  31 March 2000

  Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance quarterly summary of statistics

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  31 March 2000

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and Reduced Earnings

  Annual

  1997–98

  31 March 2000

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit—quarterly summary of statistics on new claims (accidents and prescribed diseases) and first diagnoses (prescribed diseases only)

  Quarterly

  December 1999

  17 April 2000

  Statistical summary

  Quarterly

  —

  27 April 2000

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  May 2000

  12 May 2000

  Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  18 May 2000

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry

  Quarterly

  February 2000

  25 May 2000

  Jobseekers Allowance statistics—quarterly inquiry

  Quarterly

  February 2000

  8 June 2000

  Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance quarterly summary of statistics

  Quarterly

  February 2000

  30 June 2000

  Family Resources Survey report

  Annual

  1998–99

  July 2000

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit—quarterly summary of statistics on new claims (accidents and prescribed diseases) and first diagnoses (prescribed diseases only)

  Quarterly

  March 2000

  17 July 2000

  Statistical summary

  Quarterly

  —

  27 July 2000

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  17 August 2000

  Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance

  Quarterly

  February 2000

  17 August 2000

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry

  Quarterly

  May 2000

  24 August 2000

  Jobseekers Allowance statistics—quarterly inquiry

  Quarterly

  May 2000

  14 September 2000

  Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance quarterly summary of statistics

  Quarterly

  May 2000

  29 September 2000

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit—quarterly summary of statistics on new claims (accidents and prescribed diseases) and first diagnoses (prescribed diseases only)

  Quarterly

  June 2000

  17 October 2000

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  16 November 2000

  Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance

  Quarterly

  May 2000

  16 November 2000

  Provisional Publication Dates

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  23 November 2000

  Jobseekers Allowance statistics—quarterly inquiry

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  14 December 2000

  Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance quarterly summary of statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  15 December 2000

  Fraud and error in Income Support and JSA

  Annual

  1998–99

  28 January 2000

  Release date to be determined

  Housing Benefit Summary Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Housing Benefit Summary Statistics

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Take-up of Income Related Benefits

  Annual

  1998–99

  Yet to be determined (Summer 2000)

  Appeals Service Adjudication Statistics

  Quarterly

  December 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Disability Working Allowance Quarterly Inquiry

  Quarterly

  October 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Disability Working Allowance Quarterly Inquiry

  Quarterly

  January 2000

  Yet to be determined

  Family Credit Statistics—Quarterly Inquiry

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Family Credit Statistics—Quarterly Inquiry

  Quarterly

  February 2000

  Yet to be determined

  Cross Benefit Analysis Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of working age on key

  Quarterly

  August 1999

  Yet to be determined

  426W
  statistics published by the Department under the Government Statistical Service banner.

  Although many of the dates are provisional at this stage, final release dates will be notified in the Office National Statistics Update in the month prior to the publication. This is in line with DSS release practice.
  427W

  Title

  Period of issue

  Period ending

  Date of release

  benefits

  Cross Benefit Analysis Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of working age on key benefits

  Quarterly

  November 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Cross Benefit Analysis Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of working age on key benefits

  Quarterly

  February 2000

  Yet to be determined

  Cross Benefit Analysis for Pensioners of the Population over State Retirement Age

  Tri-annual

  May 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Cross Benefit Analysis for Pensioners of the Population over State Retirement Age

  Tri-annual

  November 1999

  Yet to be determined

  Households below average Income Statistics

  Annual

  1994–95 1998–99

  Yet to be determined (Summer 2000)

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) on 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 5, if he will estimate (a) how many people will benefit and (b) what the cost will be of extending eligibility to Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance to people who pay the full cost of their care in local authority care homes; and if he will provide a breakdown of people in local authority care homes by (i) age and (ii) who is paying the cost of their care. [105074]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Estimated cost of extending DLA Care/AA eligibility to self-financiers in local authority owned/managed residential care homes

  Estimated number of gainers

  Estimated additional benefit expenditure £ million

  2000–01

  2,000

  4

  2001–02

  2,000

  4

  2002–03

  2,000

  4

  Note:

  The estimated costs and numbers of gainers are approximate and subject to a large margin of error given the limitations of the available data

  Breakdown by age of local authority care home residents

  Age

  Number of residents

  Under age 65

  10,783

  65–74

  6,460

  75–84

  19,482

  85+

  27,284

  Notes:

  1. Provided by Department of Health annual return RAC5. Relates to 1996 which is the last year for which data collected. Relates to England only.

  2. 61,943 residents of local authority staffed homes were supported by a local authority, but it is not known how the remaining 2,066 residents funded their care fees1.

  Source:

  1 Information provided by Department of Health return SRI relates to 1996, this being the last year for which data was collected. Relates to England only.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1999–2000 of(a) administration and (b) publicity for the winter fuel payments scheme. [104686]
  428W
  Angela Eagle
  The administration costs for making winter fuel payments this winter (1999–2000) were in the region of £14 million.

  To ensure that pensioners were not worried about turning up their heating this winter it was necessary to inform them of the increase in the amount of the payments and to remind them that they were on their way. This required a major publicity campaign—the costs of which were in the region of £620,000.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the system whereby Income Support is recovered from recipients of Industrial Injuries Benefit. [104840]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are no plans to change the system of recovering amounts of Income Support paid pending the payment of other benefits, such as Industrial Injuries Benefit.

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the legal advice he received that clause 49 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998; [104991]

  (2) if he will set out the basis for his statement that clause 49 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. [104990]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposals in clause 49 are compatible with UK obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this conclusion we have considered a number of issues, which are discussed below.

  The obligations under Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) are complied with as those affected by this measure will have a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in respect of the decision to withdraw or reduce benefits and the magistrates or Crown Court will establish the facts of the alleged breach, as now.

  Article 7 (no punishment without law) does not arise as the measure (even if it was regarded as criminal in nature) will only apply to those given community sentences after this Bill has become law and been commenced. There will be no retrospection.
  429W
  Although the exchange of information between the Probation Service and the Benefits Agency may raise issues under Article 8, on privacy, the exchange proposed is the minimum necessary to achieve the legitimate aims of matching benefit rights to responsibilities.

  In considering any question in relation to Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) these proposals are to be seen as part of the reform of the welfare state on the basis of a contract between the citizen and the state, whereby rights to benefits and responsibilities to society are more closely linked. Our concern is not only to achieve better compliance with community sentences, but to reflect the view that it is not fair that offenders who breach community sentences should have the same rights to benefits as those who comply. People who do comply would not lose financially, nor would those who claim no rights to benefits. Benefits are conditional on the fulfilment of responsibilities to society. It therefore does not breach Article 14 by any unjustified different treatment of those on benefits compared with others. Any different treatment as may arise is justified as it has an objective aim that is in the public interest, as set out above.

  Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) does not apply to all Social Security benefits, although contributory Jobseeker's Allowance may be regarded as a "possession" for the purposes of this Article. This proposal to withdraw benefit in these limited and specified circumstances is justifiable as it is in the public interest, striking a fair balance between the interests of the community and those of the individual, and will be provided for by law.

  The advice tendered by our legal advisers is internal policy advice and is not normally disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in developing the Debt Accounting and Management System for debt recovery; and when he expects the system to be operational. [104659]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 17 January 2000:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what progress the Benefits Agency has made in developing the Debt Accounting and Management system; and when we expect it to be operational.
  The Debt Accounting and Management system was intended to provide a means of accounting for and assisting in the control and management of benefit overpayment debt.
  Development of the solution was based on a commercially available software package. Once work was underway, it became clear that because of the complex nature of BA business processes that this would not be feasible as originally envisaged. It was agreed that it would be more appropriate to incorporate this into the wider work being carried out as part of the Departmental Modernisation Programme.
  430W
  The decision not to proceed with DAMS resulted in the need for a different solution to the difficulties surrounding benefit debt accounting and management.
  The Strategic Debt Solution Project was initiated to draw on the knowledge gained from DAMS and to provide a set of solutions that would allow the BA to progress to a strategic solution that supports a wider debt management requirement.
  The aim of the Strategic Debt Solution [SDS] Project is underpinned by six high level objectives:

  1. Over the lifetime of the solution, to contribute towards meeting Resource Accounting and Budgeting [RAB] requirements by making stepped improvements

  2. To report Benefit debt balances as accurately as possible, in the absence of an integrated end to end debt management and accounting system

  3. To implement, maintain and monitor a range of internal controls within the debt management process

  4. To identify a strategic solution for debt management and accounting working in conjunction with the Departmental Modernisation Programme

  5. To raise the profile of debt management and improve debt management capability

  6. To optimise the investment to date and any future spend

  An Options Appraisal is currently being carried out in order to identify the solution that most effectively meets these aims and objectives. The Options Appraisal involves identifying and confirming:
  The weaknesses of the current debt management and accounting processes and systems
  The high level requirements for improved processes and systems
  The various options available for meeting these requirements
  The completion of the Options Appraisal is planned for April 2000. The detailed requirements for the preferred option will then be developed in a Full Study, which will be completed by August 2000.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Girocheques
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the provisions which allow a benefit recipient to sign the reverse of their giro to authorise another person to collect their benefit from a post office will continue once the transfer to benefit payment by automated credit transfer is complete. [105568]

  Mr. Rooker
  Arrangements currently exist for customers paid by girocheque and order book who are unable to attend the post office, that ensure customers can access their benefit. Similarly arrangements also exist for customers currently paid by automated credit transfer (ACT) who are unable to attend the bank or building society.

  Arrangements ensuring that all customers who are unable to attend the post office or bank can access their benefit, will continue once the transfer to payment by ACT is complete.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his campaign to encourage the take-up of income support by pensioners will begin. [104914]

  Mr. Rooker
  An announcement of our plans to encourage pensioners to take-up their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee will be made shortly.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department has taken in the past year to ensure that appraisal of the performance of staff working for the Department's agencies takes account of anti-fraud work. [105567]

  Mr. Rooker
  Each Agency currently has its own appraisal system to reflect differing business needs, but each has a system on which staff are assessed annually across a range of objectives and competencies, including anti-fraud activity. All staff in the Department has a role to play in the fight against fraud. The Department is currently reviewing staff performance appraisal and will be seeking to further strengthen the role between individual performance and the drive to reduce fraud.

  Benefit Rules
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's examination of benefit rules to see if they contribute to fraud and error as detailed in section 2.13 of the White Paper, Safeguarding Social Security. [105566]

  Mr. Rooker
  The examination of the rule whereby a couple who declare they are living together receive less benefit than 2 people who purport to live separately is still under way.

  The other rules are being reviewed as part of wider welfare reform work.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total public expenditure on housing benefit in each of the past 10 years in respect of(a) private and (b) public rented housing. [105231]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  432W

  £ million

  Rent allowances

  Rent rebates

  Total housing benefit

  1989–90

  1,359

  2,941

  4,299

  1990–91

  1,779

  3,368

  5,147

  1991–92

  2,426

  4,068

  6,494

  1992–93

  3,284

  4,593

  7,877

  1993–94

  4,195

  5,019

  9,214

  1994–95

  4,883

  5,229

  10,112

  1995–96

  5,455

  5,431

  10,886

  1996–97

  5,810

  5,569

  11,380

  1997–98

  5,682

  5,498

  11,180

  1998–99

  5,667

  5,405

  11,072

  Notes:

  1. Sum of DSS-funded and additional Local Authority expenditure.

  2. Figures for 1989–90 to 1996–97—source: table 8 of Social Security Departmental Report 1999 (Cm 4214) and earlier equivalents. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are estimated outturn.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

WALES

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the continued rise in petrol prices in rural Wales. [105569]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss a range of issues. As part of his pre-Budget Report late last year, he announced that the fuel duty escalator would be scrapped, which means that in future there will no longer be automatic rises in fuel prices but the appropriate level of fuel duties will be set on a Budget by Budget basis. Revenues from any increases in fuel duties over and above inflation will go straight to a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport and improving the road network.

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.

  Teachers: Recruitment Campaigns
  Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they are satisfied with the response to the recent advertising campaign for recruitment of primary school and secondary school teachers.
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, so far there have been two advertising campaigns as part of the Teacher Training Agency's five-year recruitment strategy on the theme, "No one forgets a good teacher." The first positively influenced a significant number of graduates who later entered teacher training. The second has not yet been fully evaluated. However, during arid immediately after it, the number of inquiries about becoming a teacher was markedly higher than usual. A third campaign began last August.
  Lord Dormand Easington: My Lords, I am pleased to receive that Answer from my noble friend. However, is she aware that in spite of those and other considerable efforts which have been and are being made by the Government, we are failing to attract a sufficient number of teachers to meet the needs of present education policies? That is true in particular in some areas of secondary education. Can my noble friend say what research, if any, is being done with undergraduates and sixth-form pupils to identify their objections and reluctance to train as teachers? We need a clear picture of this serious problem.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I readily concede that the recruitment of teachers in secondary schools is difficult and has been for some years. However, we are improving on the position that existed a few years ago. The vacancy rates are now relatively small. The advertising campaign and other government measures are reducing the shortages, but I concede that there is more to be done.
  It is also right to ask what encourages and discourages young people about a career in teaching and the Teacher Training Agency is undertaking such evaluation.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all of us on these Benches support higher standards of teaching and performance but that in the end a teacher stands on his or her own in front of a class? As teachers are being overwhelmed by
  970
  instructions from the Department for Education, cannot the number of documents sent to them be reduced? I speak for a member of my family who teaches in Tower Hamlets and finds it rather overwhelming.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the suggestion that it is important not to put too much pressure on teachers by overwhelming them with documents and too many changes. That was one of the reasons why the Government decided not to have root and branch reform of the national curriculum as applied to secondary schools in particular.
  We are also trying to reduce the number of documents going to schools and to send them monthly rather than weekly. However, the advertisements emphasise the demands that are made on teachers. I have one in front of me which shows a picture Of a young man sitting thinking and saying, "I couldn't decide on becoming a manager, an actor or a diplomat, so I chose teaching."
  Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister have any recent data on successful recruitment from abroad? I have in mind, as she may recall from earlier Questions, countries in northern Europe which have a high educational culture, where the teaching of English to all students is of a high level and where, particularly in Germany, there is currently an over-production of teachers.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord specific statistics, but I shall be happy to look into the question and write to him. Clearly, if we can recruit good teachers from abroad, that is desirable so long as their qualifications are of the highest level and their English is perfect. I think the noble Lord will agree that that is essential. However, it would be wrong for us to become over-dependent on the recruitment of teachers from overseas.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that of the Bachelor of Education students choosing to train for primary school teaching, only 12 per cent are men? What is the Government's campaign doing to try to redress that gender imbalance?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there has been a gender imbalance in primary school teaching going back to the 19th century. I agree that we should try to prevent that imbalance worsening, but there has been a slight shift in that direction during the past decade. Once again, the Teacher Training Agency is looking in particular at ways of encouraging both young and older men because the recruitment of mature students is an important source of supply and often brings in people who have helpful experience. The TTA is addressing that gender imbalance.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, has the Minister considered the possibility of offering scholarships to people who would become teachers? It

  971
  is fairly certain that a number of people who might have decided upon teaching are deeply discouraged by the prospect of debt, more so than many others because teachers are not exactly highly paid. Is there no possibility of special scholarships for people who commit themselves to teaching? If there were scholarships, there would necessarily be a test of their quality and we should know from the beginning that we were taking on people who could become good teachers.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is actually no evidence that the current system of student support is discouraging young people from entering teaching: the numbers have gone up rather than down since the new student support arrangements were introduced. However, it may help the noble Baroness if I say that, regarding PGCEs—the largest shortages are, of course, at the secondary level—a system exists where teachers training and studying for a PGCE do not pay tuition fees.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister say what evidence there is that young men actually wish to work with primary schoolchildren? Would her resources, currently used to advertise for such schoolteachers, not perhaps be better spent on recruiting part-time male mentors for primary schoolboys in particular, and Afro-Caribbean boys most especially?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while most young men seem to prefer to enter secondary teaching, there is a core who want to teach younger children. There is no reason why men should not make good teachers of younger children. The noble Earl's proposal for introducing male mentors is not in any way inconsistent with trying at the same time to encourage more young men to enter primary teaching.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that the Government have chosen to give above-inflation pay rises to particular groups of nurses, is it their intention to do the same for teachers?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the teaching profession was given an above-inflation pay rise last year. We are now waiting for the recommendations of the review body. It would be quite wrong for me to pre-judge what the review body will say.

  Disability Rights Task Force
  2.43 p.m.
  Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they intend to implement the main recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I announced yesterday during the Second Reading of the Learning
  972
  and Skills Bill that the Government will be bringing forward a Bill later this Session to give effect to the education recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force. That will secure comprehensive civil rights for disabled people in school, further, higher and adult education. The Government are already taking forward a number of the task force's other recommendations and are considering the remainder.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome that reply and the early action by the Government on the recommendations on education and their consideration. However, is my noble friend aware that Britain's 8½ million disabled people want more than that? The only hope they have for comprehensive civil rights is the implementation of all the proposals. Will my noble friend agree that the real problem is timing, especially as it is subject to the turbulent vagaries of politics? The best solution, in my opinion, would be to have a specific timetable for every single recommendation so that disabled people know where they are and, perhaps more importantly, the Government know where they are.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that the Disability Rights Commission, the members of which were announced yesterday, will want to remind the Government constantly of the need to have as clear as possible a timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force. However, my noble friend will be well aware that a number of the 150 recommendations of the task force require legislation. It is rather difficult for the Government to have a precise timetable with regard to legislation because it will depend a great deal on parliamentary pressures.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as many of the recommendations are simply that a matter be included in future civil rights legislation, are the Government planning a general civil rights Bill on areas other than education, to which the Minister referred, and if so, what would be its timing?
  Further to my Question last Tuesday, has the Minister noticed that recommendation 7(4) on guide dogs and taxis recommends that Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 be put into force immediately?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with regard to legislation involving a civil rights Bill, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord because the Government have not yet been able to make any decisions. We must remember that we received the task force's report only on 13th December. Clearly that matter will have to be looked at. The Government are considering all the recommendations and I hope to be able to let the House know, as that consideration proceeds, what decision the Government have made on that question.

  973
  I turn to the more specific point that the noble Lord raised about guide dogs and taxis: the Government are consulting on that matter and we have asked for responses by the end of March.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree, if we are talking about transport in particular, that it is absurd for a journey to be covered by only part of the regulation? With that in mind, will the Minister agree that a date for the access of all disabled people to train services should be introduced straightaway, as already exists for other types of transport, such as buses and coaches?
  Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I accept that point. There is incidentally also a strong case for ending the exclusion of transport from the DDA Part III rights currently in force. That will require primary legislation, but the Government will be consulting on that matter also.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am delighted by the Government's decision to implement the task force's substantive recommendations on education and by Bob Niven's appointment as Chief Executive of the Disability Rights Commission. But can my noble friend say whether any of the other key recommendations will be implemented in the present Parliament and, in particular, those on transport, on extending the Disability Discrimination Act to the uniformed services and on reducing the employment threshold below 15 or, preferably, removing it altogether?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, clearly I cannot say whether those many recommendations will be implemented within this Parliament. Those that require legislation are unlikely to be implemented within this Parliament because the Queen's Speech has already been made and we have a full legislative programme. Where matters do not require legislation, the Government will try to make progress and go ahead as fast as possible. My noble friend raised the specific issue of the small employers' exemption. We had a number of debates about that matter in the Bill setting up the Disability Rights Commission. We agreed that the threshold should be reduced over time. We have already lowered it from 20 to 15, but we want to make progress in partnership with all interested parties, bringing business with us as we go.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since we are told regularly by the Government Front Bench that the difference between; ask forces and non-departmental public bodies is that they are ephemeral, will the noble Baroness tell us when the task force to which she has just referred will be abolished?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the task force has already been wound up with the appointment of the Disability Rights Commission.

  Millennium Wheel
  2.50 p.m.
  Lord Trefgarneasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the maximum wind strength which the Millennium Wheel (London Eye) has been designed to withstand (a) when stationary and (b) when in use.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Millennium Wheel is designed to withstand a wind speed of 45 miles per hour/20 metres per second when it is in use. The Wheel will not be used at speeds above that. The maximum speed which it is designed to withstand when it is stationary is 94 miles per hour/42 metres per second.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am most grateful for that very helpful reply. However, is it not the case that there has been a good deal of disappointment about the condition of the Millennium Wheel and can the Minister now tell us when it is likely to go into full service?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot say precisely when that will be. The decision is clearly a matter for British Airways and the operating companies. As they have indicated, they are replacing the clutch system which was found to be faulty before the Millennium, and they will bring it into service as rapidly as possible. However, that is not a matter for government.
  Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the Wheel gets stuck, is one meant to wait there for several days or is there a ladder long enough to get one off the top?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the procedures that accompany the operation of the Wheel include an emergency exit. I fear that I am unable to explain to the House precisely how that operates, but both the technical advisers to the company and the Health and Safety Executive will insist that such emergency procedures exist.
  Viscount Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us approximately how long it will take for the Wheel, with or without assistance from the wind, to make a complete revolution when it is fully loaded?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that that is also probably an operational matter for the company concerned. It takes quite a long time—I should think of the order of half an hour. There are 32 carriages and it is quite a big wheel; therefore, I should say that it will take a fair amount of time.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, bearing in mind the wind speeds, is 94 miles per hour really going to be enough, considering the recent storms in northern France?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, 94 miles per hour is the gust speed, and I am assured that that has only ever been reached once—at the time of the hurricane in 1987.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Wheel have anemometers on the cars?—otherwise, bearing in

  975
  mind that wind speed is variable according to altitude, how will one know when 45 miles per hour has been reached?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the 45 miles per hour speed relates to a certain height of 10 metres. Clearly, the wind speed may well be higher at a higher point. However, the structure is designed to withstand a wind speed of 45 miles per hour in motion and 94 miles per hour when stationary at that height. The structures conform with all the standards that have been promulgated by the health and safety authorities on all steel structures.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us believe that this is a great visual asset to London?
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Well, my Lords, I certainly do. I believe that it is an additional landmark and I am very supportive of it. Will the Minister tell us whether thought is being given to the Wheel continuing there in the long term, rather than just in the short term?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I concur completely with the noble Baroness in relation to the Wheel's visual impact. I believe that it is a magnificent addition to the Thames side and, indeed, to the view down Victoria Street. It sets off the rest of those historic buildings most effectively. Clearly, the case for its continuing operation is, in a sense, a matter for the company. However, I understand that the intention is that it will operate for at least five years, and that it is capable of lasting longer.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in view of the possible mishaps to which the noble Lord has alluded, can the Minister say whether the liability of British Airways to its potential passengers is unlimited or whether it is restricted by some international convention?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that that is very much a matter for British Airways, which, I am sure, has covered itself adequately in relation to insurance, as it has done on all safety issues. The Wheel is not an aeroplane and, therefore, so far as I am concerned, is not covered by international conventions.

  Traffic Congestion
  2.55 p.m.
  Lord Montagu of Beaulieuasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will create new special bus lanes on motorways and trunk roads, consider allowing their use by vehicles carrying two or more persons and establish time limits on the use of such lanes.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to making the best possible use of the
  976
  existing trunk road system in tackling problems of traffic congestion. That may, at certain specific locations, involve designated lanes. However, I do not envisage their widespread use in the immediate future on the motorway and trunk road network outside urban areas. Where such lanes are appropriate, consideration needs to be given on a case-by-case basis as to what vehicles may use them and at what times.
  Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he tell us what advice or consultation took place with other countries which have such roads, particularly with regard to their operation, and does he agree that the more commuters car-share the better?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I absolutely agree. Clearly, in the long run, a reduction in the number of car journeys is appropriate, particularly at peak commuter times. It is noticeable, for example, that at the moment on the way into London approximately 80 per cent of car travel is made by single occupants. That matter must be addressed, and a policy of education and persuasion must be adopted to get people to change their habits.
  Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, with regard to congestion, does the Minister agree that, in aggregate terms, the bus lanes are not strategically very significant and that we should be reducing the number of car journeys in this country, first, by genuinely understanding the needs of the public and, secondly, by recognising that 68 per cent of car journeys are terribly short? However, does my noble friend also agree that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, of encouraging car-sharing is rather a good one?
  Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, I believe I have indicated that I consider it to be a good suggestion and one which individuals and employers should encourage. The bus lanes on motorways and trunk roads may be a relatively small feature of our transport system. However, bus lanes within urban areas have proved most effective and have, for example, improved the average journey time of buses in London by 29 per cent. Those journey times could be significantly further improved if there were no obstructions. I believe that, certainly in the urban environment, bus lanes have proved their worth.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister confirm a report in The Times today that, rather than reducing traffic or, indeed, holding traffic at present levels, Ministers will concede today that traffic levels will rise by more than a quarter over the next decade? If that is true, would it not be better—I think particularly of the M4 bus lane—to scrap bus lanes altogether because all that motorists see on the M4 bus lane are tourist coaches, taxis and the occasional Government Minister?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have recently passed a copy of a leaflet to the noble

  977
  Lord, Lord Brabazon, which proves through independent research that at peak times travel times for car drivers on the M4 have improved significantly. There are always a number of taxis on that road, most of which are full of bona fide travellers and not Government Ministers, who, of course, are bona fide travellers in a different sense!
  So far as concerns the figures which will be released today by my noble friend Lord Macdonald, the base line figures show an increase in traffic in most areas. However, the various combinations of government policy, applied effectively, would reduce significantly levels of congestion and pollution—the most important issue—rather than traffic volume. That is particularly so in urban areas and to a significant degree on motorways, where traffic is likely to increase most. I suggest that the noble Lord reads that document in detail before he comments further.
  Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister, in association with his colleagues in the Home Office, take steps to ensure that all police forces in the country co-operate with local authorities in using camera technology to enforce discipline in bus lanes, wherever those bus lanes are?
  Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. One of the issues to be addressed in the better funding regime we are piloting in relation to speed cameras is the enforcement of parking and lane restrictions. As I have indicated, that will help to improve traffic flow, particularly in congested urban areas. More generally, police forces and chief constables will be following advice to give greater attention to road safety matters including the congestion of bus lanes.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will greater consideration be given to allowing powered two-wheelers, which are both economic and environmentally friendly, further use of bus lanes? As the majority of accidents to these vulnerable, powered two-wheelers are ca used by other people, does he think that in heavily congested areas bus lanes would be by far the best place for them?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, local experiments have been carried out where powered two-wheeler motor cycles have been allowed to use bus lanes. The results are not absolutely clear. Nevertheless, I recognise that in certain circumstances, powered two-wheelers can make a contribution to reducing congestion in urban areas. We would wish an integrated transport policy to take full cognisance of that fact.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, as the Minister has broadened his answers to include digital cameras, can he confirm reports that the cost of installing them will be met by a substantial increase in parking fines, possibly of 50 per cent?
  Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. Perhaps the media and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Elton, are confusing two separate stories. The funding of such cameras and
  978
  associated road safety improvements is, indeed, being put on a better and more hypothecated basis. However, the increase in the fixed penalty charge recently indicated by the Home Office relates to a general upgrading of fixed penalties. The previous figure had remained the same for over 10 years. Therefore, an increase was well overdue.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the Government's policy of reducing car use, or at least stabilising it in future, squares with the policy, which I understand that the DTI wants to pursue, of relaxing almost completely the planning rules on out-of-town "mega" shopping areas?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, I believe that the noble Lord is reading too much into newspaper reports. There has been no change in the planning system as regards out-of-town shopping areas. As regards the general approach to car use, there is a huge underlying growth in traffic, as has been discussed, and it is a case of restraining such traffic. The real issue for motorists and society as a whole is to restrict congestion and pollution. We believe that the measures we are taking will achieve those objectives.

  Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
  3.4 p.m.
  Report received
  Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  ("Armed Forces (Human Rights) Court
  RESOLUTION OF CONVENTION RIGHTS UNDER THE SERVICES DISCIPLINE ACTS
  .—(1) An Armed Forces (Human Rights) Court designated by rules in accordance with section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall be established to adjudicate on questions relating to the application of the European Convention on Human Rights to the provisions of the Service Discipline Acts raised on appeal from the decisions of Courts Martial or the Courts Martial Appeal Court.
  (2) An appeal may only proceed with leave of the Court granted on the grounds that it is arguable that the decision was in breach of Convention as represented in the Notice of Appeal.
  (3) The Court having heard the appeal may either affirm or set aside the decision (or remit the case for further consideration), and make such order as to costs as may be deemed to be just and appropriate.
  (4) New evidence may not be adduced at the hearing (whether oral or on affidavit) unless in the opinion of the Court the demands of justice so require.
  (5) The Court shall be convened by the Secretary of State as and when it is expedient in his opinion to attend to business.
  (6) The composition of the Court shall consist of 2 or 4 members of the Armed Forces appointed by the Secretary of State sitting with a senior member of the judiciary as President appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  (7) Arrangements to give effect to subsection (6) are to be made in consultation between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State.
  (8) The question arising for determination of the Court under the provisions of this Act may not be raised on an application for judicial review unless leave of the Court was refused by the Court.
  (9) In this section "the Service Discipline Acts" means the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, and the Naval Discipline Act 1957.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 proposes the setting up of a designated military appellate court solely concerned with the determination of convention issues arising in the course of the disciplinary process under the service discipline Acts on appeal from courts martial or courts martial appeals court in order to ensure compatibility with the convention.
  The amendment is drafted on the assumption that Clause 11 and Clauses 14 to 25 do not stand part at Third Reading. If they were to stand part, subsection (1) of the amendment could be easily redrafted to include the summary appeals court. Consequential amendments to the Bill would be of no material significance.
  The fundamental question arising for your Lordships' consideration is whether such convention issues should be resolved by a military court with relevant specialist expertise of the highest order or as part and parcel of the general appellate jurisdiction as proposed by the Government.
  The strength of the case for the amendment could well be fortified by other questions arising which interact, irrespective of whether a summary appeals court were to be set up, as to which Clause 11 holds the key. The following questions arise. Could the service discipline Acts, as such, be struck down as incompatible with Articles 5 or 6 of the convention? Is the advice tendered by government to such effect as justifying this Bill as requisite to comply with the convention well founded? As no specific breach of any article of the convention under the extant disciplinary process has been asserted by government and none has been identified, is it either profitable or indeed possible to anticipate compatibility as proposed by the Bill?
  Is it not appropriate to seek to amend the service discipline Acts to deal with identified putative breaches as proposed in Amendments Nos. 8 to 14? Is the reason given in the MoD letter received by me yesterday for the Government's change of mind not to set up such a court as is proposed by the amendment, that there would be insufficient calls on such a court to merit its establishment, well conceived? Does the Government's assertion that the summary appeal court and the courts martial appeal court should deal with convention issues as they arise afford a satisfactory means of resolution? Lastly, is Clause 11, which triggers the setting up of the summary appeals court, workable in practice, in particular on active service on armed operations short of war? Would it inhibit the maintenance of good order and discipline or is it requisite under the extant regime where the commanding officer informs the accused that the charge has been proven and there is a right to elect trial by court martial? That is a procedure which no one in the services to whom I have spoken considers to be unfair or discriminatory in any way. Such are the broad parameters of this debate.
  As to the justification for setting up an armed forces (human rights) court, as proposed by the amendment, the main objection in the MoD letter received yesterday is met. This court would only be convened ad hoc; "as and when" the occasion arises; it would be wholly cost-effective. The court would be constituted by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State in consultation, the appointment of a senior member of the judiciary having relevant expertise of the highest order to preside, sitting with two or four duly appointed members of the Armed Forces.
  As there is no binding system of judicial precedent and as the articles of the convention are to be interpreted with flexibility on a case-by-case basis, the form of judicial resolution proposed by Amendment No. 1 is surely to be preferred. Would either a commanding officer or the summary appeal court, as constituted under Clause 17, have the requisite expertise to determine compatibility? Interpretation of the articles in the light of a mass of evolving jurisprudence assuredly warrants the attention of a senior member of the judiciary with the relevant knowledge and expertise, as proposed by subsection (6) of the amendment.
  The court as constituted would afford the most appropriate and effective forum for the determination of these convention issues. Convention rights are to be acknowledged and applied at all stages of the disciplinary process. But before resort may be had to the Commission or the ECHR, domestic procedures must be exhausted. Subsection (8) preserves the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court only if leave to appeal was refused under subsection (2) (the sifting mechanism).
  Under the extant regime there is the election of trial by court martial (if the case is proven) from which an appeal on a convention issue would lie to the court proposed by Amendment No. 1. Under the Bill, as proposed, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked at any stage of the disciplinary process.
  Amendment No. 1 derives originally from a proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill when opposing my amendment to remove the Armed Forces from the fast-track procedure as inhibiting the due discharge of the summary disciplinary process to maintain good order and discipline. The noble and learned Lord took the point and acknowledged that such process—the disciplinary process—bore scant kinship with the exercise of summary jurisdiction in our civil or criminal courts. He proposed that appeals on convention issues would lie to the courts martial appeal court and be resolved there.
  In a letter addressed to me dated 10th March from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, at the MoD, reference was made to a proposal for a designated military court to determine issues solely relating to convention rights, such as is proposed by this amendment. By courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, copies of all relevant correspondence with the MoD

  981
  have been made available in the Library of your Lordships' House, and the House is grateful. The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, ended,
  "Such a Court as you mentioned would be designated by rules in accordance with c a use 7 of the Human Rights Bill; the rule would be agreed in the period between the Bill receiving assent and its coming into force. I do not think you need to worry therefore about this option being foreclosed if we do not take an immediate view on this proposal. We have enough time to reach a fully considered decision".
  Accepting that assurance, I was wholly content and did not worry until I saw this Bill. The position as stated in the letter of 10th March was that the proposal of the designated military court, for which I am contending, was accepted and should not be foreclosed upon; but that rules as to implementation of that proposal were under consideration. It is not known why that proposal should have been rejected by another letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on 9th June in favour of referring convention issues arising in the disciplinary process to the civil courts for determination. That letter is not so readily intelligible.
  It is not known why the proposals in that letter should have been rejected. Perhaps—one does not know—some ministerial task force has been at work. If so, your Lordships may wish to examine its instructions and its findings. Perhaps as a result of a series of internal departmental consultations (which included the MoD, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) the Government changed direction more than once, became disorientated and eventually lost their way, not only on instructions to prepare for this Bill, but also on the advice tendered to the Chiefs of Staff and the noble and gallant Lords who took part in the debate on the Bill.
  The service discipline Acts apply in a variety of circumstances—in times of peace, in times of war, on armed operations, and on active service short of war, on which now around half of our Armed Forces are engaged. As drafted, Articles 5 and 6 of the convention do not expressly apply to the disciplinary process of the Armed Forces. The House was informed on a previous occasion by my noble friend Lord Renton—who is present and who was involved in the early stages with setting up the constitution for the court—that, as far as he remembers, there was no intention that this Bill should apply to the Armed Forces. Indeed, as your Lordships know, France opted out without any ado.
  As regards adopting the continental approach to interpretation, if the ECHR were to decide that Articles 5 and 6, as such, applied to the disciplinary process, the text would suffer very substantial erosion and limitation upon the rights and obligations conferred on civilians. A flexible approach should be adopted. On the facts and circumstances of any particular case, the doctrine of "proportionality" would be applied, in particular on active service short of war. This convention does not require any signatory state to enact legislation, such as proposed by this Bill, which would inhibit the maintenance of good order and discipline in its armed forces. Most signatory states possess armed forces with disparate disciplinary
  982
  processes. Amendment No. 16A, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton, is well conceived.
  Compliance with Articles 5 and 6 only requires that the disciplinary process should be fair and conducted under fair procedures without discrimination. No one can foresee or pre-empt the range of circumstances in which these articles could apply as regards compatibility of a disciplinary process with the convention. The facts and circumstances of any particular case mean that a collateral convention issue could well arise, such as, for example, under Article 8, especially in peacetime circumstances.
  Assuredly the convention does not require amendment to the service discipline Acts or the setting up of a summary appeal court, as proposed by the Bill. It is wholly implicit that convention rights and obligations imposed on civilians should stiffer substantial erosion and limitation. The extent of such limitation has not, as yet, been examined by the Commission or the Court. The Court would not strike down the service discipline Acts as such and the means of seeking compatibility, as proposed by this amendment, is commended to your Lordships. I beg to move and, in doing so, I apologise to the House for the time that I have taken.
  Lord Carver: My Lords, in explaining his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned that he is assuming that Clauses 11 and 14 to 25 will not form part of the Bill. He also mentioned the question that was raised in Committee and on Second Reading about the applicability of the Bill in terms of active service. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I proposed that Clauses 11 and 14 to 25 should not stand part of the Bill. Therefore, it is appropriate that I should explain at this stage why I have not tabled any such amendment on Report.
  During the Christmas Recess I took legal advice, as I hope the Minister did. I took such advice from sources that are far more familiar than I am with the goings-on at the European Court of Human Rights. That advice was very clearly that if the existing arrangements for the Army and Air Force Acts over election for trial by court martial at the end of summary proceedings rather than at the beginning were to remain, we would almost certainly lose the case at the European Court, even if we did not lose it in a court in this country. However, more importantly, in the course of that being considered by the European Court, the danger is that the whole issue of whether summary proceedings were themselves in conformity with the convention on human rights might be brought into question. That would be extremely dangerous; indeed, far more dangerous than just bringing the election of trial by court martial to the beginning instead of the end of summary proceedings.
  The latter argument has certainly convinced me and it is the one which, I believe, has convinced the senior officers in the Ministry of Defence, as claimed by the Minister in Committee. I accept that they have been

  983
  converted to full support of this Bill. I should not like to guess exactly when they were converted, but they have been converted.
  I am not quite sure of the extent to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is dependent on Clauses 11 and 14 to 25 staying in the Bill. However, I should like to make it clear now that I assume that they will stand part of the Bill, and that I do not oppose them standing part of the Bill. As to the operation of the whole system, particularly the clauses before Clause 11, in times of active service and high intensity warfare—I certainly still agree that it could not be made to work in those circumstances—I accept that there need not be anything in the Bill to cover that situation. I believe that a precedent already exists in the derogation that the British Government made over the civil courts in Northern Ireland, which is fully explained in Schedule 3 to the Human Rights Act, and that that would be the way to deal with the issue.
  However, I am not sure in my mind because I have other worries about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as regards its relation to other courts. If the amendment is dependent on Clauses II and 14 to 25 not remaining part of the Bill, I should make it clear that I am assuming that they will remain part of the Bill.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I suggest that what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has said makes it clear that there is a serious confusion which could cause trouble in the administration of law within the Armed Forces. That confusion is caused by our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and is to a great extent confirmed by the Human Rights Act of last year and by this Bill. It is right that an attempt should be made to reconcile those confusions. For that reason, I think that what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has proposed with his new clause must be regarded as a valiant attempt to reconcile these problems.
  As my noble friend mentioned, I tried to resolve the problem in Committee in a rather short and simple way. However, the noble Baroness, on behalf of the Government, would not accept my amendment. I have tabled the amendment again, although it appears starred on the Marshall List for a strange reason that I may mention when the time comes to deal with it. I believe that the Government really must seriously consider the confusion that can and will arise on many occasions in the three Armed Forces, unless we try to find a way of reconciling the conflicting problems.
  My noble friend has made a splendid attempt in this respect. Of course, one could amend his proposed new clause in various minor ways. However, I think that the Government should, in principle, say that they realise there is this confusion and that it must be resolved somehow. I should have thought that the right thing for the Government to do is to say that they will accept the new clause, realising that they have power to amend it either on Third Reading or when the Bill goes to another place.
  984
  Before I conclude I hope that I may mention what my noble friend Lord Campbell said about the part that I played half a century ago when I was one of the representatives—I was a Back-Bench Member in another place—attending the Council of Europe. I went there in 1951 and 1952. By the time I got there in 1951 the European Convention on Human Rights had already been approved. My recollection is—I remember looking up the discussion which had taken place before I got there—that the purpose of the convention was to protect the people of Europe from further instances of the kind of terrorism and horror which had prevailed during the Second World War and which many thought would continue afterwards.
  In that context I do not think that there was any attempt to consider and to reconcile the effect of that convention on discipline within the Armed Forces of the European countries. It is rather strange that the conflict could only have arisen almost half a century later. But it has arisen and we have a duty to try to reconcile it. It is for those reasons that I suggest that the Government should apply their minds seriously to this matter and if they do not accept the amendment of my noble friend find a way of their own. However, a good step towards doing so would be to accept his amendment and, if necessary, amend it later.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have not taken part in the previous debates on this Bill but I have carefully studied the Hansard reports. My military qualifications for taking part are rather meagre. During the Suez war I had the privilege of performing national service in the Royal Artillery first as a field gunner and later as a second lieutenant working with but not of the First Brigade of Guards, based in Kent. I suppose that I was on active service in the sense that we were at 24 hours' notice to embark for Egypt, but perhaps happily for others we never left our barracks in Shorncliffe. As a teenage subaltern I assisted in one court martial and on occasion I had to enforce discipline, including briefly depriving offending gunners of their liberty. That experience scarcely qualifies me as an expert on military law and discipline but it convinced me that the regime for dealing with disciplinary offences was archaic and unfair.
  A better reason for venturing into this debate in the presence of so many noble and gallant Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, with whose legal advice I respectfully agree, is my knowledge and experience of the human rights convention and its case law. The Minister has made a statement under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 of her view that the Bill is compatible with the convention rights. It is unfortunate that the Government have not sought to set up the long-promised Joint Select Committee on human rights because I have no doubt that such an expert committee would agree with the Minister's view. In the absence of such a committee I shall do my best to explain, as an unworthy substitute, why I believe the Bill to be compatible with convention rights, why I think that it

  985
  is appropriate and necessary and why I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is inappropriate and unnecessary. I shall also try to explain why the recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are not totally accurate—there is no reason that he would know this—as regards what went on in the Cabinet before we decided to ratify the convention in 1950.
  The Bill secures the convention right to liberty, guaranteed by Article 5, the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed by Article 6, and the right to the enjoyment of these convention rights without discrimination, as guaranteed by Article 14. Without this legislation—this Bill—there would be a serious risk that when the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force next October Ministers and senior officers of the Armed Forces would be vulnerable to legal challenge under the existing legislation, with collateral damage to morale, good order and military discipline. The Bill sensibly diminishes that risk—it cannot be eliminated altogether—and the Government are to be commended for introducing a measure to bring our statute book and practice fully into line with convention standards.
  When the Human Rights Act is in force British courts will have not the power but the duty of construing legislation where possible compatibly with the convention rights, applying the well-known principles of legality, fairness and proportionality developed by European and Commonwealth courts. Our courts will do so more rigorously than does the European Court of Human Rights as an international court because that is what Parliament has decided that they should do by enacting the Human Rights Act. With effect from next October all public authorities, including Ministers, government departments and officers of the Armed Forces performing functions of a public nature, including disciplinary functions, will be liable for any failure to comply with convention rights in the way they per Form those functions. Therefore the Government are acting in the interests of commanding officers and in the interests of service personnel as well as in the wider public interest in introducing a system which will protect convention rights and avoid unnecessary litigation by lawyers such as myself.
  In my view the Bill achieves a fair balance between two vital public interests: the public interest in creating a framework of discipline to be applied effectively to the three Armed Forces wherever in the world they are based in peacetime and in times of conflict; and the public interest in ensuring that the civil rights of service men and women are effectively protected against any abuse of essential disciplinary powers. I am fortified in my opinion by the fact that the Chiefs of Staff have been fully consulted on the changes and endorse the need for them.
  Critics of the Bill in this House have made much of the fact that when France ratified the convention in May 1974 it ma de a reservation in respect of the Armed Forces. So, more recently, has Turkey. The French reservation was not open-ended. It was specifically linked 10 the effect of Articles 5 and 6 of
  986
  the convention on Section 27 of Act No. 72–662 of 13th July 1972 governing the system of discipline in the French armed forces and to the provisions of Article 375 of the French code of military justice. I am not an expert on French law and I cannot inform the House of the scope of those provisions, nor whether their compatibility with convention rights has been challenged. What I can say is that the European Court of Human Rights would interpret the French Government's reservation narrowly to ensure that it did not in any way undermine the very substance of the convention rights to liberty and to a fair trial without discrimination. Opponents of the Bill would be most unwise to draw support from the French Government's reservation, which does not in any event apply to the UK or to any other contracting state. Turkey's reservation has been circumvented by the European Court in the case of Loizidou for slightly different reasons.
  Departing for a moment from this theme, as regards the Attlee government of 1949 to 1950 and the first Wilson government in 1965, having read the debates. I read again overnight the Cabinet papers which recorded what happened before we ratified the convention and before we decided to accept the right of individual petition. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, was concerned that ratification would be incompatible with the visiting forces Act in relation to American forces in Britain and the absence of any right to habeas corpus. That was the only issue with regard to military law which troubled the government in 1949 to 1950. Similarly, when the Wilson government decided to accept the right of petition—although by that time it was perfectly clear from the text of the convention and from case law that it applied to the Armed Forces—the Ministry of Defence and other government departments found no difficulty so far as concerned the absence of a reservation.
  Coming more to the present, pre-trial custody involves an interference with right to liberty for which there must, under the convention, be adequate safeguards against abuse. The Bill provides for adequate internal and external safeguards in three ways: by requiring the commanding officer to review the need for continuing custody; by requiring the commanding officer to apply the criteria prescribed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and by requiring a judicial officer to approve continuing custody in excess of 48 hours. I believe that these changes are necessary to secure full compliance with Article 5, including adequate safeguards against possible abuses of discretionary powers. The fact that the judicial officer will normally be a judge advocate or a naval judge advocate, who exercises independent judicial functions in courts martial, ensures the necessary safeguards of independence and impartiality as well as the necessary expertise.
  The changes made to the procedures for summary discipline are also, in my opinion, needed to secure full compliance with Articles 5, 6 and 14, by giving a right of appeal from summary hearings and by establishing a summary appeal court, consisting of a judge advocate and two independent officers, generally from

  987
  the appellant's service, with public hearings and a limitation on sentencing powers to ensure fairness and proportionality.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would, as we have heard, create an Armed Forces human rights court consisting of between two and four members of the Armed Forces, appointed by the Secretary of State, sitting with a senior member of the judiciary as president, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The court would deal with appeals from decisions of courts martial or the courts martial appeals court on questions relating to the application of the convention, and would be convened by the Secretary of State as and when it was expedient, in his opinion, to attend to business.
  There are several objections to the amendment. First, it is unnecessary because courts martial and summary appeal courts will be obliged, under the Human Rights Act and under the Bill, to interpret and apply the law compatibly with convention rights, as will every other court and tribunal in the land. There is no need to add a further tier of statutory appellate jurisdiction.
  Secondly, the requirement that the president of the proposed court must be a senior member of the judiciary would impose a considerable and unnecessary additional burden on the already overburdened senior judiciary.
  Thirdly, there is nothing to be gained by the amendment in terms of the composition or expertise of the appellate court. Clause 15 of the Bill provides for judge advocates, who must be of at least five years' standing as qualified lawyers, to be appointed by the Judge Advocate General and the Chief Naval Judge Advocate. Clause 16 provides that officers will be qualified for membership of the summary appeal court if they are commissioned military officers in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces with not less than two years' service. Clause 21 provides for the case stated procedure to the High Court on the ground that the summary appeal court's judgment is wrong in law or in excess of its jurisdiction. The respondent to the appeal could presumably challenge the decision by way of judicial review in the High Court, although that is a matter that the Minister may wish to clarify. Obviously it is important that respondents as well as appellants should have some means of access to the most senior courts.
  Fourthly, under the amendment it would be left to the Secretary of State to decide when to convene the proposed human rights court. It is difficult to understand why the Minister should decide that question. The Bill is more flexible and practical, enabling the summary appeal court for each service to sit in two or more divisions, enabling a number of courts to sit in different places to hear different cases at the same time, as the interests of justice require.
  I regret that I cannot be present throughout the whole of the debate on the Bill—I have to chair a meeting elsewhere—but I hope it is clear from what I have said that I regard the opposition to the Bill as
  988
  misconceived and contrary to the best interests of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, officers and service personnel. If I may say so, nothing has been more debilitating to service morale than the completely unnecessary litigation against the Ministry of Defence, involving sex discrimination against pregnant women and others, race discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. The reason I call it "unnecessary litigation" is that it must have been plain to everyone that all such litigation was bound to lead to defeat for the Ministry of Defence, at enormous expense to the taxpayer and to the morale of people in both the ministry and the Armed Forces. The Government surely are sensible in seeking to avoid further unnecessary litigation by creating a fair, rational and practical new statutory framework.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I hope that he will accept—certainly in my case and, I believe, in that of others—that those of us who have been tabling amendments to the Bill are not against the principle of human rights applying to the Armed Forces. We are seeking to test whether the solution that the Ministry of Defence has come up with in the Bill is the best solution from the service discipline point of view. The wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the amendment that we are now discussing, have been very helpful in testing whether the solution brought forward by the Minister is the very best one possible. I hope that the House will approach the matter in that way and not by way of assuming that we are trying in some way to disown the obligations of the Ministry of Defence under the Human Rights Act.
  When the Human Rights Bill was passing through the House I tried very hard to obtain some arrangement which would minimise the impact of the human rights legislation so far as it concerned forces discipline. I failed in that, but I am very pleased that the matter has come forward in this form. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to the amendment.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. We all agree about the common objectives; the question is one of means. It is quite clear from Article 11(2) that the convention applies to the Armed Forces. We agree about that.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is this not Report stage? We do not have points of order, but we do not have more than one speech. The noble Lord perhaps has not been here long enough to realise that.
  Lord Bramall: My Lords, I, too, should hate to see the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, dismissed like that. It is an extremely helpful amendment.
  Like my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, I do not want to make it more difficult for the Chiefs of Staff than it is already. There is no question that,

  989
  however necessary the Bill proves to be, it will be highly unsatisfactory in practice in many ways for the commanding officer and for the administration of justice, particularly on active service. I do not want to go over all the arguments again but I do want to ask the Minister one question: in view of the detailed legal arguments that the House has just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and in view of the very important observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can the noble Baroness put her hand on her heart and say that she has gone back to the legal advisers of the Ministry of Defence and asked them whether they must be quite as inhibiting as they have proved to be?
  It has been suggested that some of these contrivances are not really necessary. We want to know that the Ministry of Defence is looking for some way of perhaps reconciling these two opposing issues. I know that the Chiefs of Staff are in a very difficult position; they certainly do not want to expose the various military procedures or in any way lose the powers of a sum nary court. But undoubtedly there will be problems. As has been said many times, the Bill will slow and confuse the administration of justice; it will undermine the authority of the commanding officer; it will be extremely difficult to administer, particularly on active service; and it will greatly add to the workload of the commanding officer and the various staffs involved at a time when they are already extremely stretched. One certainly does not want to do more than is absolutely necessary. I should like an assurance from the noble Baroness that she has looked at this matter again in a questioning manner and asked whether more could be done to rationalise these different points of view.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, at Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill on 5th February 1998, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
  "I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. I have given an indication about willingness to consider designating military courts as the appropriate forum for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]
  At the time the amendment in question was that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Will the noble Baroness look again at the amendment tabled today by my noble friend in the light of that statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Furthermore, can she tell your Lordships' House in what way the amendment of my noble friend differs from the aspirations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
  I listened to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, with great interest. It seems that we can fix ourselves somewhere on the spectrum between the minimum necessary to be compatible with the human rights convention and the maximum possible. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord; I shall be interested to hear from the Minister where she believes us to be on that spectrum.
  990
  Having listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in Committee, I thought that his amendments to Clause 11 and Clauses 14 onwards were absolutely spot-on—to have the appeal to a court martial after the summary decision but before sentencing arid to remove entirely the appeal from summary sentence. I submit to your Lordships that that ought to meet the requirements of the convention. It would also remove enormous difficulties for commanding officers. Above all, it would allow the commanding officer to retain that authority in peacetime which we know is so necessary to him if he must go to war.
  In supporting the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, I urge the Minister to think carefully about whether she can take an initiative of some kind to remove both options so that the provision of one option would satisfy the criteria laid down by the convention.
  Lord Vivian: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for not being present at the Committee stage of the Bill. Unfortunately I was ill. I am not a lawyer. Rather, I am speaking to the amendment as a former commanding officer.
  I wonder whether this amendment. which would establish an Armed Forces human rights court, might add yet another level of bureaucracy, cause more expense and possibly extend the time for dealing with disciplinary offences when perhaps the existing military courts would be able to deal with them. During the past week I have read the reports of the Second Reading and the Committee stage, the revised Bill and the Explanatory Notes in considerable detail. I constantly put myself in the position of a commanding officer and, for that matter, the adjutant who is responsible for the staff work of dealing with court martial papers.
  With all due respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has worked so hard on the Bill, I am not sure whether an Armed Forces human rights court would simplify the proposed systems in the Bill. A commanding officer will be able to deal summarily with military offences provided that summary appeals courts are established. That would then make summary dealings comply with the European Court of Human Rights. I may have missed the point here, but it seems to me that, although this may not be entirely satisfactory, the aim to ensure that the commanding officer retains his authority to deal summarily with military offences has been achieved. However, this will allow an accused to appeal against finding and sentence which, as many noble Lords have pointed out at various stages, might undermine a commanding officer's authority. However, an accused has always had the right to submit for redress of grievance and this has not undermined the authority of the commanding officer.
  I do not believe that there is a better way than that proposed in the Bill to make trial by the commanding officer compliant with the European Court of Human Rights, or a better way to protect the rights of summary dealings. I do not believe that the staff work will be dramatically increased because the

  991
  commanding officer will deal with the deputy judge advocate general's department in a similar manner to the way he now deals with the Directorate of Army Legal Services. In other words, the Directorate of Army Legal Services will release some responsibilities which the deputy judge advocate general and judicial officers will then take on.
  If I was a commanding officer, I would willingly accept the proposals in the Bill to ensure that disciplinary offences could still be dealt with by the commanding officer as opposed, perhaps, to having them dealt with in the magistrates' court, which would be utterly disastrous.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has a habit, which he has used effectively on a number of occasions, of moving amendments to appear before Clause 1. This enables him to get in first and to generate a full-blooded debate, not only on his own amendment, but on the Bill as a whole. It is therefore his fault that we have had the benefit of a full-scale Second Reading speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who, with his great knowledge and wisdom as a lawyer, has added to that a full-blooded Committee stage contribution.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has raised the important point as to the position, if this amendment is accepted, regarding the opposition in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and a number of other noble Lords to the Question. That Clauses 11 and 14 to 25 should stand part of the Bill.
  At an earlier stage in the debate the Minister said that one of the purposes of the Bill before us is to demonstrate that life has moved on since the introduction in 1951 of the European Convention of Human Rights, or indeed the original date of the existing Army Act 1955. However, with respect to the noble Baroness the Minister, I suggest that 95 per cent of the purpose of the Bill is to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Throughout the discussions on the amendments moved by my noble friends and others runs the theme that we wish to ask the Government: does this amendment ensure that the Bill is compliant with the Human Rights Act and is it necessary for that Act? In that context, we shall be moving Amendment No. 23, which is an amendment to the Title of the Bill. However, we are now discussing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, which seems, in spite of what may be said by my noble and gallant friend Lord Vivian, to simplify an appeals stage of the court martial procedure. It is in itself not the easiest amendment, but, with respect to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, it enables us to remove all these other clauses.
  I am delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, another noble Lord who has immense legal knowledge, whose views I trust implicitly. He and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, have referred to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on what is now the Human Rights Act. What the noble and learned Lord said at
  992
  that time gave absolute assurance that what we had was very nearly, though not quite, what we needed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has moved his amendment. It is an excellent amendment. I hope that the House will accept it.
  4 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, revisits an issue that first emerged in your Lordships' House during the consideration of the then Human Rights Bill and has since been raised at the Committee stage of this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has argued his case about his specific amendment and also for the opportunity he has afforded the House for a rather wider-ranging exchange.
  At the Committee stage we established that the desire for this amendment arose from the debate on the Human Rights Bill in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to look into the question of designating military courts to deal with convention points arising in the Armed Forces. At the Committee stage I advised the House that the Ministry of Defence had given the proposition very careful thought, but in the end had decided against it for the reasons I then stated. I wish to make it clear that when I speak of the Ministry of Defence I am, as with all the other issues concerning the Bill, talking about a process of consultation with the services. Since the noble Lord tabled his amendment, I have of course sought further advice. I have, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put it, applied my mind. In the present case, the staffs of all three services were clear that, after careful consideration of the matter, they saw no justification for setting up, training and staffing such a court.
  However, I should say that the proposition that they were focusing on concerned the possibility of convention points arising in isolation from disciplinary proceedings. This amendment, on the other hand, is concerned with convention points arising in the course of disciplinary proceedings. I think it is important to be clear about that distinction.
  We do not consider there to be an issue where convention points arise in the course of proceedings. They can be raised in an accused's defence. If the accused is not content with the outcome of the hearing or trial, he or she has a right of appeal to a court which can deal with any convention points raised in the appeal. These appeal courts are within the service system—either the summary appeal court or the courts martial appeal court. In this respect, I believe that they satisfy the noble Lord's concern that service courts should deal with this kind of convention point.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, we certainly do not need a new court even further up the hierarchy of service courts to deal with convention points alone. If an accused wishes to appeal from the decision of the courts martial appeal court on a convention point or any other point, he or she would

  993
  be able to seek leave to appeal to this House in its judicial capacity. I have every confidence that the House would be fully capable of understanding any service factors that were relevant to the case, and we should of course appoint experienced lawyers to represent the service interest.
  I mentioned that the services have examined the possible case for a designated military court to deal with convention points arising in isolation from disciplinary proceedings. Quite frankly, the services did not think that there would be enough business to justify its establishment. There is confidence that there will be very few convention points arising solely in isolation in the service environment. That expectation is not borne of complacency, but because it seems likely that most convention points which do not arise in the course of disciplinary proceedings will nevertheless be attached to another cause of action. For those that do arise in isolation, we still consider that the High Court would be the most appropriate place to deal with them. Again, we would make sure that the service interest was not overlooked by these courts, since we would be properly and appropriately represented.
  I have to applaud the persistence of the noble Lord in his pursuit of the cause of creating new courts to deal with convention points in the services. I genuinely believe that there is no difference between the noble Lord's concern and our concern to get the right answers to the questions. However, we are quite firm in our view that there really is no need for such courts. All the various types of cases can be dealt with perfectly adequately elsewhere.
  Moreover, we do not want to incur the expense involved in creating new courts for this purpose. Even an ad hoc court as described by the noble Lord—he said that it would be used as and when needed—would use resources better deployed elsewhere and, more importantly, would not gain the depth of experience necessary to do justice to the claims, experience which is readily available in the civilian judicial system.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, explained why he will not pursue the amendments which he moved at the Committee stage. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his explanation and, if I may say so, not a little relieved that the advice he has received is so very similar to the advice I myself received.
  I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his intervention. His expertise on the European convention is among the best available in this country and is well known in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the lawyers in government service who have advised me, as well as those who have advised the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will be relieved in that regard.
  The noble and. gallant Lord asked about the derogation that is used in Schedule 3 to the Human Rights Act. The derogation in Schedule 3 is a real example of the use of a derogation under Article 15 of the convention. It is a derogation from the convention in order for Her Majesty's Government to rely upon
  994
  the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The reason for the derogation is that the situation in Northern Ireland might be such that it is in our view a public emergency threatening the life of the nation—to use the words of Article 15 of the convention itself. The noble and gallant Lord asked whether such a derogation can be used in times of armed conflict. The answer to his question is yes—if the armed conflict is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, made clear that his misgivings about the Bill, which he expressed cogently in Committee, were not because of a lack of concern about human and civil rights in the armed services. I, and I am sure all other noble Lords, accept that absolutely clearly, but I hope that what I am saying does to a certain extent help to satisfy some of his worries.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked me point blank whether I could say "hand on heart"— I believe those were his words—that I had been back to legal advisers. Yes, I can, hand on heart. I have discussed possible alternatives with legal advisers and with officials. I assure the noble and gallant Lord that I have looked at possible amendments in the way I undertook to the House I would. The advice I received was that we have the best possible formulation in front of us now, certainly the best that we in the Ministry of Defence have been able to come up with.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does the advice she was given provide guidance as to what happens when the appeal court, which she mentioned and which arises under the Bill, finds that there is a conflict between the needs of military discipline and the application of human rights?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord means the summary appeal courts. The appeal courts would have to take into account the balance of arguments. I do not believe we are in a position to give advice to appeal courts in that way. The advice we would be giving is advice to commanding officers about what they must take into consideration. If there is anything further that I can say, it will be in advice that we shall put out. We hope to be able to move forward as quickly as possible on giving such advice, which is why I feel that the most expeditious conclusion to this will be best for everyone in the Armed Forces. If there are any further written points that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I undertake to do so.
  I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that nothing we are doing now is contrary to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in consideration of the 1998 Act. As the noble Lord reminded us, my noble and learned friend spoke of a willingness to consider military courts. We have considered them but feel that the mechanisms we need are there in the way that I described in my opening remarks to your Lordships on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.

  995
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, a trifle teasingly I thought, that I made the point that life had moved on. However, he said that it was about compliance with the Human Rights Act. I do not believe that the two are in contention. Life has moved on. One example of how it has done so is that we have taken the convention into domestic law. That is one of the ways in which we have moved on, because it was felt right and proper, by all sides of the House, that we should take that action in bringing the convention into domestic law, as we have.
  I suggest that nothing in what I have said in any way takes away from the point about, on the one hand, trying to have law that is compliant and, on the other hand, the development in human and civil rights. I am pleased that we have moved on considerably in those respects since 1951. I believe that most noble Lords will be able to agree.
  We have given careful consideration to the noble Lord's amendment. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to look at the matter again and for the courteous way in which he approached the issue, both in the House today and in some of the private conversations we have had. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary and hope that on reflection he will feel able to withdraw it.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for the spirit in which she took the amendment and for understanding the spirit and purpose for which it was tabled. However, as yet no specific breach of any article of the convention has been identified which requires this massive amendment to the service discipline Acts. If one were to take the sense of the House, it has been a good debate and according to my card the majority opinion, the sense of the House, is that we should continue to seek a compromise and a middle way. I am prepared to continue to do that.
  I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Bramall, for what they said. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who was quite right in his interpretation of why I tabled the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Burnham; it is quite a change of experience. I was delighted to have such valid support from my own Front Bench.
  I mean it when I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that I am grateful for all the trouble he took and the expertise which he deployed before the House. It was perhaps unfortunate that in the mass of expertise and exposition he somehow misunderstood the spirit and purpose of the amendment. The noble Baroness did not, but he did. I am grateful to all noble Lords. I wish to read the debate in Hansard and have the opportunity to think again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 2:
  Before Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
  SERVICE DISCIPLINE ACTS: CONSOLIDATION
  (" . On the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of the following Service Discipline Acts consolidated into a single Act and including all the changes with respect to military discipline made following the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998—

  Army Act 1955;

  Air Force Act 1955; and

  Naval Discipline Act 1957.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not now, nor was I on a previous occasion, teasing the noble Baroness when I say that a perspicacious Minister—and I rank her as one—would note that the wording of the amendment is similar to that moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The reason it has not changed is that I could not better it. I wish to make a point and I hope that I can obtain succour from the noble Baroness.
  We noticed in Committee that with all amendments there were the Bill is not made easier by the three service disciplinary Acts, which are marginally different. That means that virtually each amendment has had to be put down three times. As the Minister pointed out in Committee, there is also the Manual of Military Law, which is inclined to weigh down the right-hand side of my noble friend Lord Attlee.
  That makes life difficult. The addition, on top of that, of the Bill, the Human Rights Act and all it implies makes life for the military commander and anyone else who has to enforce military discipline very difficult. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able either to accept the amendment or, if they cannot do so, to give me more than just hope, an assurance, that in the quinquennial Act that we expect in the year 2001 we shall have a reconciliation into one Act of all matters of discipline which affect the Armed Forces. I beg to move.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if, in responding to Amendment No. 2, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 7. I am grateful for the opportunity to add to my remarks in Committee in responding to the amendment on the subject of consolidated texts tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. At that stage I sought to reassure noble Lords that up-to-date texts of the service discipline Acts, having been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, were available to Parliament to assist in consideration of the present Bill.
  However, it emerged during debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that there was probably as much concern about the availability of up-to-date texts of the legislation outside Parliament. It is possible that I did not address this legitimate area of interest as fully as I might have done at Committee stage. I have subsequently written to a number of noble Lords to clarify the position, and I am happy to do so again today.

  997
  We ensure that those who have most need of the discipline Acts—members of the Armed Forces—have ready access to them in their current state. Since Committee stage I have been reassured that in all three services commanding officers and others are provided with a manual—for example, the Manual of Military Law in the case of the Army—containing updated texts of all relevant service law, with explanatory footnotes and textual commentary. A number of copies are available within units at all times. Clearly, it is essential that that should he the case, and I hope that the information I have provided reassures noble Lords. The manuals will be updated further after the enactment of the present Bill.
  However, this amendment goes rather further than that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. It appears to suggest that the three service discipline Acts should be merged into one. There are two approaches to this. There is the approach implied in the amendment which simply wraps the texts of the three current Acts into a single cover. That does not appear to be very attractive to us. It would produce a piece of legislation for the services to work with which was three times as large as that which each has to operate today. Alternatively, the Government's approach, which is set out in the Strategic Defence Review, is to work towards a genuine tripartite service discipline Act. We believe that this offers very real benefits in an environment where the services work ever more closely together. It will produce a disciplinary regime to match that joint environment. Unfortunately, such an Act cannot be developed overnight or even, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, suggested at Committee stage, during the Christmas Recess.
  Our priority is the present Bill. In the next Session we shall consider the quinquennial Armed Services Bill. Both Bills will alter the service discipline Acts. After the quinquennial Bill is enacted in 2001, we shall start substantive work on the major project of creating a new framework for service discipline with the development of a new tri-service Act. Obviously, we shall want Parliament to consider that as soon as an appropriate Bill is ready and parliamentary time is available.
  I have difficulty in understanding Amendments Nos. 5 to 7. The intention appears to be to prevent a day being appointed for a particular purpose until the manuals of service law containing copies of the updated service discipline Acts have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. My difficulty lies in knowing to what the words
  "no day shall be appointed for this purpose"
  refer. The amendment is attached to the provisions of the Bill which deal with the arrest of art accused during his trial by court martial. It appears, therefore, that the intended effect of the amendments is to prevent these provisions alone from having an effect until the manuals of service law have been deposited in the Libraries. In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I hope that I have made clear the position as to the availability of the updated texts of the service discipline Acts.
  998
  We believe it is of the utmost importance that those concerned with the administration of discipline should be aware of both the changes in service law and their significance. I can assure noble Lords that everything will be done to ensure that the changes in procedures envisaged in the Bill are fully understood by the chain of command; that is, commanding officers and all who need to be aware of what is in train. The manuals will be amended and training will be provided. Whatever the purpose behind Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, can assure the House that everything will he done to meet what I believe is their benign intention; namely, to make the new law known to all. I hope that, on the basis of the assurances that I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 is solely to underline what we believe is the necessity to reconcile and consolidate the various discipline Acts. As to Amendment No. 2, I was very happy to hear virtually all that the noble Baroness said. However, she said that after the quinquennial Act the Government would look very seriously at reconciliation of the discipline Acts. I do not now seek anything as ridiculous as completion of the necessary work over the Christmas Recess. A considerable time will elapse before the publication of the Bill. I ask that the quinquennial Act should itself contain the reconciliation of the disciplinary Acts. With that caveat, I have much pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 3:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  APPLICATION OF ACT TO GENEVA CONVENTION OPERATIONS
  (" .—(1) Where a person to whom this Act would otherwise apply is engaged in operations to which the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 apply, the several time limits set by this Act by reference directly or indirectly to the time at which the person is first arrested shall not start to run until either—

  (a) the arrested person is no longer engaged in operations to which the said Conventions apply; or

  (b) fourteen days have elapsed since the arrest was made, whichever is the first.

  (2) A reasonable belief on the part of the commanding officer or other superior authority concerned that the said Conventions apply shall be an absolute defence against any allegations to the contrary.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to a matter that is a source of substantial worry to a considerable number of noble Lords, particularly those whose experience of administering service discipline is greater than mine. The amendment is related to the impossibility in certain circumstances of administering the Act as set out. One is concerned with timing. We do not believe that under the polar ice cap, in Kosovo or in South Georgia it is possible to apply the time limits contained in the Bill. We have no desire to damage the Bill but we seek to make it possible to apply it effectively.
  Amendment No. 3 has been worded so as to make reference to the Geneva conventions which provide an internationally agreed definition of "armed conflict". That definition is narrower than the UK's definition of "active service", to be found in Sections 224 and 225 of the Army Act and the provisions in the other Acts. The derogation contained in Article 15 of ECHR is not good enough for what we require. We do not suggest that a nation will be in peril very often, which is required for the purposes of that derogation. We seek to apply an acceptable compliant definition of "active service" which, while narrower than the UK working definition, which is also used for other purposes, is a real marker of the dividing line between ordinary service life when the ECHR applies and the extraordinary circumstances peculiar to service life when it is generally recognised that on occasions—this point has been made by a number of noble Lords during debates on the subject—personal liberty must for the time being be subordinated to the requirements of discipline. We talk about additional protocols. The UK became a high contracting party to those additional protocols in 1998. The first additional protocol relates basically to an international conflict and the second to a national one.
  Subsection (2) of the amendment deals with whether those additional protocols cover in British law the situation when, for example, British troops operate under the United Nations as distinct from the United Kingdom authority, as in Kosovo. There is a reasonable belief that they do so but no certainty. Subsection (2) is somewhat like that catch-all phrase to which my noble friend Lord Renton will refer later: offences against good order and military discipline.
  We believe that subsection (2) is a reasonable definition and a requirement which, if applied, would not be in breach of the Human Rights Act or the ECHR. We believe that the amendment is not contrary to the Human Rights Act or the ECHR. It is a practical way, and the only way, in which it will be possible to apply the Act when we are in peril. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Carver: My Lords, I recognise that the amendment is an ingenious way of meeting the criticism that I made at Second Reading, in Committee and today about circumstances which I refer to as high intensity warfare. For example, if the Gulf War had continued for a great deal longer, it would not have been practical to apply Clauses 1 to 10 concerning custody and gaining authority from the judge advocate.
  However, I am not happy with the amendment. Subsection (1) would be difficult to apply. To state that those conditions are the ones automatically to apply will lead to considerable difficulties and complications. It would be unsatisfactory to rely on the reasonable belief of the commanding officer.
  I accept that the wording of Article 15 of the convention as a basis of derogation might raise difficulties. But if it can be used as it has been used in
  1000
  respect of the civil courts in Northern Ireland, I cannot understand why it should not be used, as the noble Baroness suggested, in those conditions where it would be impractical to apply the provisions.
  The advantage would be that the British Government would determine when they wanted to make the change and when they did not, whereas there could be difficulties in deciding on the conditions suggested by the amendment. Although I recognise that the intention is admirable, I regret that I cannot support the amendment.
  Lord Vivian: My Lords, to a certain degree this amendment returns to the timing provisions that have been drafted for custody regulation. Like many of your Lordships, I was concerned that the proposals in the Bill for custody would not be workable in operations such as the Falklands, the Gulf and certain peace enforcement situations.
  However, on further scrutiny of the Bill, I have now noted—I missed it at Second Reading—that in the proposed legislation there are adequate provisions for flexibility in those instances when operational imperatives make it impossible to conform to those legal requirements. New Section 75B(4) provides flexibility in reviewing custody. It states:
  "If a review is postponed under subsections (3) [and (4) of this clause]".
  Presumably this would then entitle a commanding officer to postponement of a review provided that it is carried out as soon as is practicable after the expiry of the last authorisation under new Section 75A(4) of the Bill.
  New Section 75E(2) allows the commanding officer flexibility over the timings of custody hearings and reviews, and periods of time in the relevant clauses are to be treated as approximate only.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I speak on the same lines as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vivian. The serious intent of the amendment is to strengthen the phrase in new Section 75B, "as soon as practicable", and to put it into a stronger form.
  As a layman in many of these matters, during the past week I consulted two acquaintances who have recently held regimental command on whether such an additional amendment was necessary. Their opinions on the quality of the Bill were different. One said, "We have to accept this. It's a necessary evil". The other said, "It's a thoroughly good thing. It's about time we encouraged COs to recognise that justice should reign even on operations". The strongest impression I received is that the communications revolution has made it possible to operate a system where "as soon as practicable" means not a very long time.
  One exceptional circumstance remains: the prospect of a nuclear submarine under a Polar icecap. However, whether one's entire military system should be based upon that one exception needs to be considered carefully. One of those to whom I spoke said, "If you are in deepest Kosovo or Borneo, the Ministry of Defence may not want to speak to you all the time, but

  1001
  the BBC or CNN will be demanding an interview, whatever happens". So the image of long operations which are not in touch with base seems no longer to hold. I therefore suggest that the amendment is not necessary and that the phrase "as soon as practicable" covers the necessary clauses.
  Lord Lea of Crandall: My Lords, I have been a Member of this House for only a few months. It is interesting to note that when this issue, which loomed large only a few weeks ago, is put under the spotlight it reveals that an active service clause is not a sensible idea. Many Members who believed, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that that was the way forward do not believe so now. During this debate there has been much reference to flexibility. Clause 2 of the Bill refers to Section 75 of the Army Act and indicates that in practice the issue should be dealt with on a common sense basis.
  To reiterate the point in another way, this problem, as perceived by many noble Lords only a few weeks ago, has been thoroughly scrutinised. A broad consensus is emerging on all sides of the House that it has been looked at very carefully and that this is probably not a good solution. The Bill will be debated for many weeks yet in the newspapers and in the country, and those concerned should take note of how this process of scrutiny of this aspect of the Bill has produced a very useful consensus result. It is very useful that the matter has been raised, but I believe that that is the message being received around the House on this point.
  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am always reluctant to draw analogies between the police service and the armed services. They have very different roles and functions. But there are similarities structurally—hierarchy, uniform and a discipline code.
  The amendment seeks to make a distinction for armed personnel on active wartime service. One way in which the police service differs from the armed services is that it is permanently on active, operational service. Therefore, discipline proceedings must be juggled between the ability to deal with the policing of riots, football matches, crime investigations and so on. In such emergencies it is nevertheless possible to have a single discipline code. That does not mean that a police officer has a lower standard of entitlement to human rights because he happens to have committed a discipline offence during a riot or some other emergency.
  It is also extremely important when one has a discipline system to have a single discipline system that everybody understands. To have a dual system that applies in some circumstances and not in others could be extremely dangerous. Senior officers and commanding officers in the armed services exercise discipline through mutual respect and trust. It is very important that any discipline system is trusted, respected and understood. To have a dual system would militate against that.
  1002
  It has been said that the system laid down in the Bill would be sufficiently flexible to deal with the situation of being engaged on the frontline in Kosovo or even under the Arctic ice. With modern systems of communications it would surely be possible to be in touch with the judge advocate and receive his authority for custody if necessary.
  My experience is, though, that when officers are actively engaged in an operational situation discipline problems fall away; there are very few in those circumstances. Therefore, the amendment should not be supported.
  Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I always listen with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I always did when I was on the Front Bench, very often having to reply to him. I know the concerns that he expressed that exist in certain quarters in relation to when troops are on armed service. But a very good case has been put forward today. Modern communications overcome many of the problems that the noble Lord poses.
  I think that what is really being said here concerns the need in the cases in question to get hold of the judicial officer, and that can be done by modern telecommunications. As has been said with regard to Kosovo, the commanders-in-chief from the theatre were almost daily on the news conference given by the MoD. Therefore, the logistical concerns expressed by the noble Lord can be overcome.
  There are one or two other good arguments as well. My understanding is that the Armed Forces, and particularly the Chiefs of Staff, support the proposed measures, because they do not want two systems, which would lead to chaos and duplication. We should take on board the views of the Chiefs of Staff as well.
  For all the good reasons that have been given, particularly modern communications, and the views of' the Chiefs of Staff, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, will reconsider the amendment and decide to withdraw it.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, made it clear in Committee that he was likely to continue his quest for a provision to be added that would lessen the impact of certain of the procedures envisaged in the Bill in certain circumstances. Part of his difficulty was to find a means of defining those circumstances. This amendment focuses on the Geneva convention of 1949 and the additional protocols of 1977 as a definition of those circumstances in which there could be what might be called an operational opt-out.
  I should say that I understand the noble Lord's desire for such an opt-out. On the face of it, it appears to be very helpful to the services. We have certainly re-examined the issue since our debate in Committee; that I have done with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. Since much of our discussion then was about the meaning of the word "war" and the relevance of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we have looked at those issues in particular.

  1003
  In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, told us about the Geneva conventions and protocols, in the context of a possible definition of "war". As he will know, those international conventions apply to an armed conflict, whether or not a state of war is recognised as existing by all or any of the parties. Neither "war" on the one hand nor "armed conflict" on the other is defined in the Geneva Conventions or their Protocols, because it was not necessary to do so.
  The position was accurately summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he said,
  "there is no state of war unless there is a declaration of war with all that that entails",
  adding that,
  "so many activities go on all over the world, and have done so since World War II, which are totally akin to war."—[Official Report, 16/12/99; col. 325.]
  As it happens, the United Kingdom has not declared war for 59 years, when Japan entered World War II. All this goes to show the wisdom of the drafters of the Geneva Conventions, when they decided that it was what was actually going on that was of importance, and not what the parties decided to call what was going on. It is significant, too, that the UN Charter does not refer to "war" in any of its operative articles.
  The meaning of "war" arose in relation to Article 15 of the ECHR, because a derogation can occur only
  "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
  We had cause to reflect on that quotation earlier this afternoon. The qualifying words—
  "threatening, the life of the nation"—
  obviously limit the availability of the power to derogate to extreme situations, and even then Article 15 only allows for derogation
  "to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".
  The European Convention does not define "war"; nor is it necessary to do so. Whether military operations are a declared war, or are part of armed conflict where no war has been declared, the key question is whether the conflict that is going on threatens the life of the nation. That expression is not defined in the convention, but it has been interpreted by the Court of Human Rights, and it is clear that the primary task of assessing whether the test is satisfied is for the state concerned, subject, of course, to the supervision of the court.
  I hope that that was not too long-winded and was sufficiently clear. I think it is important that we all define the parameters within which we are discussing the noble Lord's amendment.
  A number of noble Lords have asked in particular whether the ability to derogate in respect of our summary discipline arrangements could have arisen in any of our recent military involvements. I was asked particularly about the Gulf and the Falklands in the Committee debate on 16th December, when I remember saying that this was a difficult point. In Bosnia, in Kosovo and in East Timor, United Kingdom ground forces were involved as part of
  1004
  international peacekeeping forces operating under UN mandates, and, of course, with the agreement of the countries concerned. It is difficult to see how such situations could fall within the power to derogate under Article 15.
  In the Gulf War, we were also part of an international coalition, authorised by the United Nations, to use armed force to compel the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Again, that was not a situation where the power to derogate could very easily be said to have been triggered. The Falklands were a little different in that the islands were, and still are, British territory—indeed, territory in which the convention applied—so it is perhaps more readily arguable that the right to derogate could in principle have been triggered. However, it would be wrong for noble Lords to assume that Article 15 powers to derogate would axiomatically be triggered whenever UK forces are fighting abroad. I am afraid that that is the flaw that lies at the heart of the noble Lord's amendment.
  In any event, the conclusions we have reached on the subject of a possible opt-out are rather different from those of the noble Lord. Our conclusions reflect our confidence in the measures in the Bill. I am of course aware that the noble Lord's major concern is that the provisions of the Bill may impede operational effectiveness. These concerns are well intentioned, but they are misplaced. The proposals in the Bill have been designed, with the services, specifically so as to be compatible with all circumstances in which the services might find themselves.
  I can assure your Lordships that operational considerations will remain paramount. There must be no misunderstanding on this point. This Government, like any other responsible government, will expect commanders to give appropriate priority to the operational imperatives of the situation and to the lives and security of all those under their command. I hope that is a sufficiently clear and unequivocal statement. There is no conflict between the unwavering intention behind what I have said and the procedures laid out in the Bill.
  It may be that the concerns that there could be such a conflict reflect an exaggerated idea of how frequently some of the provisions in the Bill will need to be implemented. In the vast majority of cases, there will be no need to hold a suspect in custody for periods that will require approval by a judicial officer. It will be known whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prefer a charge well within 48 hours and even if there is not enough information on which to base such a decision within this time-scale, it does not follow that it is necessary to hold the individual in custody. The more extreme the circumstance that we envisage—such as the submerged submarine, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—the easier it is generally likely to be to assemble sufficient evidence to prefer a charge.
  Similarly, after charge, it will not usually be necessary to hold an accused in custody, so the need for a custody hearing will not arise. Where there is a

  1005
  requirement for such a hearing, the Bill provides that it should be held as soon as practicable. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vivian, drew that to our attention so cogently. This is dealt with in Clause 2. The formula "as soon as practicable" occurs on page 15, lines 19 and 20, for the Army Act; on page 17, lines 5 and 6, for the Air Force Act; and for the Naval Discipline Act, on page 18, line 38.
  This formula gives us the flexibility that we need. Perhaps I may return to the scenario of the submarine, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. If it were at the beginning of its patrol, and in the unlikely event that there was a need to hold an individual in custody, there would be no question of the submarine surfacing to enable the individual to be brought before a judicial officer. Such a hearing would have to wait until after the end of the patrol. That would be "as soon as practicable", as provided for in the Bill. I need hardly make the obvious point that, in any event, the accused would have very limited freedom of movement on the submarine in question.
  After a summary hearing, there will of course now be a right of appeal. There will be time-limits within which this right is to be exercised and we shall be debating those later. But the Bill allows for applications to be made out of time—another important point—and it is difficult to imagine a more sustainable reason for such an application other than deployment on a submarine patrol or similar operational exigency. Therefore, I believe that flexibility is contained within the Bill before your Lordships.
  If an assurance is being sought that in the most extreme operational circumstances the requirements of the Bill will somehow be set on one side, I cannot offer that. Indeed, that is to miss the point. A single system—and as my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, we need a single system—capable of operating in all circumstances reduces the scope for confusion and divisiveness. The system we have proposed in the Bill, because of its flexibility, provides that.
  We are not posing commanding officers with the unpalatable dilemma of whether to implement the procedures envisaged in this Bill or, on the other hand, to maintain operational effectiveness. The Bill allows commanders to discharge both those responsibilities.
  I again stress that we regard it as key to the proper fulfilment of our responsibilities that commanding officers must be given proper guidance in the application of these new procedures and the way in which they should exercise the flexibilities that are inherent in the Bill. We shall discharge that responsibility.
  I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his amendment and, more fundamentally perhaps, the concerns which it attempts to articulate. Perhaps I may borrow a phrase of his and say that we have developed the Bill together with the people who know what they are talking about—those who are responsible for these matters in today's services. That is what gives Her Majesty's Government the confidence that with them
  1006
  we have been able to get the Bill right. I hope that I have given the noble Lord sufficient assurance to allow him to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, I think that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for his personal remarks. I may have to study them again, but I thank him. There is one point on which I disagree with him and other noble Lords; that is, on their reliance on modern communications in the circumstances we envisage if personal contact is not possible. We have previously talked about video links and goodness knows what else and I was amused to note that the Minister did not pray that in defence of her case. Perhaps some of her military advisers nudged her and told her that such bits of kit do not always work!
  I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of her opposition to my amendment. Perhaps I may add to what she said about war. I raised the matter in an intervention in Committee. Different nations treat war in different ways. The United States, with which we are frequently closely associated, has a difficult definition of war. It is not practical to use a declaration of war as a possibility for what I am seeking. As I and other noble Lords have said time and time again, Article 15 is not good enough. It does something, but not enough.
  The Minister understands what I am trying to achieve. However, listening to her and to other noble Lords I get the message that, although the end result is desired, the way in which I have approached the matter does not meet with favour. There is one more stage of the Bill. As a result, I shall go away. "I shall come back"—in the words of General Macarthur—but I hope that I shall be able to come back with an amendment which achieves what I am trying to achieve and which will meet with the approval of the House. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5 p.m.
  Clause 1 [Custody without charge]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, line 20, at end insert (", or
  ( ) to obtain authority to search him, his possessions or his accommodation").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I remind the House that I am a serving TA officer and I have powers of summary jurisdiction which I exercise on behalf of my commanding officer.
  It occurred to me that the powers of a CO with regard to searches are quite extensive and that they might not be compliant with the ECHR. I have therefore drafted this probing amendment to enable us to debate the issue of searching servicemen or their property and to give the Minister the opportunity to inform your Lordships of any changes regarding the power to order or to undertake searches.
  My amendment provides another reason for detaining a serviceman to those provided in Clause 1: to obtain the necessary authority to undertake a

  1007
  search. It is purely a probing amendment. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House what are the powers of the commanding officer and other officers to order a search, either formal or informal, and whether she is confident that there is no requirement to modify the current rules regarding searches as they obtained at the start of this Parliament. I beg to move.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in order to investigate an offence effectively, it is axiomatic that searches of a person or his possessions and accommodation may be necessary. That may be the case in any investigation conducted by the service police, or indeed otherwise.
  It is with that requirement in mind that the services were content in the Bill to adopt the long-established wording in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, without modification. That is from where the wording is drawn. New Section 75A in the Bill currently provides for someone to be detained without charge if there are reasonable grounds for believing that that is necessary for the purposes of securing or preserving evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest.
  Because we cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it would be reasonable, in the context of a police investigation, to search a person, his possessions or his accommodation other than for the purposes of securing evidence, we believe that the current provision provides a wide enough definition and that the Bill does not need to be amended in the way that the noble Earl has suggested. I hope that with that explanation he will feel that his probing amendment has revealed sufficient reason as to why the Bill is drafted as it is and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, before I withdraw my amendment, will the Minister say whether there are any plans to amend the Queen's Regulations regarding searches?
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unaware of any such plans, but if it is purely a case of my ignorance rather than my wisdom on the point, I shall write to the noble Earl and let him know that I am wrong. However, I do not know of any such plans.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 [Arrest during proceedings]:
  [Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
  Clause 7 [Judicial officers]:
  Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 29. line 14, at end insert ("and shall enjoy security of tenure, in that they may only be removed from office in the same manner as circuit judges").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. This and other amendments have been put together by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. My noble and learned friend is at the present moment in court in Edinburgh. He had thought that he would be able to be here at about this time—or about an hour ago, as he did not believe that the debate would continue for this long. However, at the beginning of the debate I received a message that he would not be with us. Therefore, with apologies to the House, I shall, if I may, blatantly quote from the brief that he has given me on the matter.
  Amendment No. 8 relates strictly to a legal situation which has arisen in Scotland, which has got my noble and learned friend going—which makes it clear that I know even less about the matter than I should have done otherwise. My noble and learned friend says that the Government justify most of the Bill's clauses on the basis that they are required to meet ECHR commitments. He is concerned whether the provisions relating to judicial officers in Clause 7 and the existing law relating to the use of judge advocates are convention compliant. In both instances, the factual basis for his concern and mine in moving the amendment is that they may be appointed on short-term, temporary and renewable contracts. That raises the issue of whether the involvement in court martial procedure means that the provisions of Article 6(1) are being breached. It grants an entitlement to the determination of any criminal charge by,
  "an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
  In Committee, my noble and learned friend mentioned a criminal case decided by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow. In that case, the appeal court in Scotland held that trial before a temporary sheriff appointed by the Scottish Executive for one year, whose appointment on the one hand could be terminated at any time and, on the other hand, could he renewed from year to year, did not constitute compliance with Article 6.
  The case was decided on 11th November 1999. When my noble and learned friend spoke in Committee on 16th December, there was still a possibility that the Crown would have marked an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It has chosen not to do so. That means that the UK Government now must indicate whether or not they consider that the case was correctly decided. If so, how can temporary or part-time judges be acceptable in court martial procedure? If not, what are the grounds for saying that the case was incorrectly decided? It is no use saying that that was a Scottish case and has no relevance in England. Court martial law applies throughout the United Kingdom. In any event, the basic principles with which the Scottish court was concerned, both as to the facts and the convention, are just as applicable to court martial law.
  My noble and learned friend is deeply concerned, as we have all been throughout discussion on the Bill, about whether the Bill is compliant with the convention and, as we have said, whether the Bill is over-compliant. But here we are asking whether it is

  1009
  compliant. I do riot know whether the Minister can give an answer at this stage. If she cannot, I believe that it is a matter to which we should return at Third Reading when, I have no doubt, she will be able to give an answer. The amendment is an indication that we are not happy that the Bill achieves what it is said to be trying to achieve. I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I warmly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has just said; in particular, that Her Majesty's Government will need to take the lead in regularising the matter of part-time sheriffs, judges and justices of the peace. As the noble Lord said, a complaint was made recently which was mentioned in this House by a number of noble Lords from the opposite Benches. A fairly important case was rejected by the European Court on the basis that it had been insufficiently decided and, therefore, was null and void.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has said that the matter goes much wider than the ramifications of this Bill. I suggest that it will affect, as he correctly said, all parts of the United Kingdom. For example, the phrase "part-time judges" will apply to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will forgive me for dragging in that obscure part of the United Kingdom!
  At an earlier stage in my career I served for 15 or 20 years as a justice of the peace. The highlight of my career was that I presided over the initial stages of a murder trial. I have raised a question in relation to this matter but have rot been able to obtain an answer. I do not direct that at the noble Baroness, who has been very sympathetic and courteous throughout. However, I want to place on the record that currently my successors as justices of the peace are all part-time justices. Certainly, they provide that service—for example, signing summonses and hearing cases—in their spare time and sometimes at the expense of their careers.
  However, unless we as a Parliament—I include both Houses—are extremely careful, I am afraid that we may find ourselves in a situation where dozens of trials will collapse by reference to the European Court on the insufficiently decided formula simply because, at some stage, the decision was taken by someone who, in the past, was appointed quite legally arid who believed himself to be authorised by the Crown to hear and decide criminal cases. When the lid comes off, we shall see that a whole range of well-meaning people at different levels have presided over the dispensing of justice when, in the eyes of the European Court, they were not entitled to do so.
  Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, by way of information, perhaps I should mention that there is another Scottish case which raises the same issue. As has been said correctly, the case of Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow is not to proceed any further. Therefore, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will not have an opportunity to examine the decision in that case.
  However, there is another case (the name of which escapes me) which involves the question of whether a temporary judge—that is, a judge at a higher level than
  1010
  temporary sheriff—is properly appointed. I understand that that case has now been reported tinder Scottish procedure by the temporary judge in question to the Inner House of the Court of Session—this being a civil case—and that the question arises as to whether the Inner House will then refer the matter to the Judicial Committee for decision. I have no doubt that that case is known also to Her Majesty's Government. However, it is right that we bear in mind that those issues arise in a number of ways and affect different judicial officers at different levels. Therefore, for what it is worth, I support the point already made that this matter requires careful attention before a final decision is taken.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I mention very briefly that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is in court today. My noble friend Lord Burnham asked me if I would stand in to say virtually nothing, other than that I wholly support the amendment. In view of what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, there is no question that this matter will need to receive attention.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, after our discussion in Committee. In all fairness to the noble and learned Lord, who, unfortunately, is not with us this afternoon because of his commitments elsewhere, I should say that he will not have received the correspondence because it was, I believe, placed in his pigeon-hole this morning. However, I make the point to your Lordships that I have tried to pass some information to him.
  Perhaps it will help your Lordships if I put a little more flesh on the bones about the present facts of the matter. In the Army and Air Force, trial judge advocates are mainly the holders of permanent, pensionable judicial appointments, although other part-time judge advocates are also used for around one-sixth of courts martial.
  In the Royal Navy, judge advocates are fully qualified barristers who are, first and foremost, commissioned officers. Once they have sufficient legal experience, they may be rotated into a judge advocate post in the same way as other personnel in the services are posted into different jobs at different points in their careers. Being a naval judge advocate is one of a number of roles, both legal and non-legal, which a suitably qualified officer will perform during his time in the Royal Navy.
  At present, consideration is being given to the detailed arrangements for the appointment of judicial officers provided for in the Bill. As I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, is aware, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is considering the implication of the Starrs case and has undertaken to make a Statement to the House when his consideration is complete. Obviously, we shall be guided by his conclusions, but I believe that it would be inappropriate and certainly most unhelpful for me to react to the Starrs judgment outside my

  1011
  noble and learned friend's wider review of the position of the judiciary in the light of that judgment. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that the points they raised will be drawn to the attention of my noble and learned friend.
  I hope that in the light of the assurances that I have given the House about the intentions of my noble and learned friend in making a Statement on this important matter, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and, in absentia, his noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon will understand my position, and that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, certainly I fully understand the noble Baroness's position and I withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
  Clause 11 [Right to elect court-martial trial]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 32, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(3A) An accused who elects for court-martial in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) above may apply to the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority for leave to withdraw that election.
  (3B) An application by the accused for leave to withdraw election for court-martial shall include a written statement as to those of superior rank with whom he has discussed the application.
  (3C) The record of the grant of leave to withdraw election for court-martial shall include—

  (a) the application together with the statement from the accused required by subsection (3B) above;

  (b) a written statement signed by the person or persons who gave advice to the accused on behalf of the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority and such record.

  (3D) The record of the grant of leave to withdraw election for court-martial shall be delivered forthwith to the Judge Advocate General.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 16. In scrutinising the Bill, we are attempting to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of military discipline. Much has been said by the Minister to advocate those new rights. We discussed the timing of the accused's election for court martial. The Minister put forward an attractive argument that election for court martial after a finding of guilt by the CO could be more by way of an appeal than a court of first instance. It may have been possible merely to alter the rules of procedure to eliminate that possibility. We have not returned to that point at this stage of the Bill, but another place will no doubt re-examine the issue.
  Changing when the accused can elect for court martial is of little value if, in practice, the accused is unable to exercise his choice. Let us suppose that a
  1012
  small piece of army equipment has been lost. I apologise for using an army illustration but it is easier for me, although the argument is the same for each service. The soldier claims that he handed the equipment to an NCO but the NCO denies that. Unfortunately, the unit's receipts and issues register is not in particularly good order. Due to the low value and sensitivity of the equipment, the penalty at summary dealing is likely to be very modest. However, the soldier knows that he did not lose the equipment and his legal advice is that the charges would not be sustainable at court martial.
  In those circumstances, it would be quite reasonable to elect for court martial because at summary dealing, he may well be found guilty. In a later amendment, I shall address the applicability of PACE to summary dealing and courts martial.
  Unfortunately, in the real world, he would not be allowed to exercise his right to elect for court martial for such a trivial matter. Such a matter would initially be dealt with by the officer commanding—the OC—on behalf of the CO. If the CO himself heard that a soldier wanted to elect for court martial and, by implication, did not trust the OC, the CO would not be impressed with the OC. If it happened to the OC a few times, he would be in difficulties with his commanding officer. If the commanding officer's superiors heard that a soldier was electing for court martial, they too would draw unfavourable conclusions.
  So what happens in practice, in the real world, is that heavy pressure is applied to the soldier to withdraw his election. The situation could be one of a warrant officer, the company sergeant major or the regimental sergeant major telling or even forcing a private soldier to withdraw his election for court martial in order to avoid embarrassment for his superiors and, indeed, the whole unit. That is hardly equality of bargaining power.
  The Minister will have to decide whether it is worth while changing when the accused can elect for court martial if, in practice, he cannot freely exercise that right. Is the Minister content with that situation and, if not, what will she do to address the problem?
  My amendment makes it clear that the accused can withdraw his election but provides that he will have to make a statement as to who of superior rank has counselled him to withdraw his election. It does not affect his ability to consult those of the same or lower rank. Those who counsel the soldier on behalf of the CO would also have to make a statement. The records of those statements would then be sent on to the judge advocate-general.
  The rules of procedure, which can be found in the manual of military law, could provide that the accused must be warned before he decides whether or not to elect for court martial that he will have to make a statement if he subsequently withdraws his election.
  I considered other ways of achieving the same ends and, in particular, limiting who could counsel the accused. I also looked at how I could ensure that if something were going horribly wrong in the unit, the provisions of my amendment would precipitate an

  1013
  external inquiry of some kind. Perhaps a provision that no one of superior rank within the unit could counsel the accused would ensure that the accused could talk to someone outside the unit if he thought that he was being unfairly accused.
  I accept that my current amendment may not be the best way of achieving the desired end but it is one way of doing so. I repeat my question. Is the Minister content with a situation in which, in practice, a serviceman cannot freely elect for court martial and, if not, what will she do to address the problems? I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. I understand what it is designed to achieve and I support that but I wonder whether it really achieves it because within it, although it is the best that can be done, there is always the possibility that the Court of Human Rights would say, "Oh, but the procedure as such leans too heavily against the man". I express it in very simple terms.
  For my part, I believe that we may well have to return to the problem of whether Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill. I suggest that that is the only satisfactory way of dealing with this situation in view of some of the arguments which I raised on Amendment No. 1 which really were not controverted by any specific allegation of breach. I shall not return to the Motion that Clause 11 shall not stand part of the Bill unless I am supported in that by my own Front Bench because to do so without that support would be to waste the time of the House.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, although I understand the intention of this amendment with regard to the Army and Air Force Acts, I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I am extremely concerned that he believes that it is necessary to table this amendment in the first place.
  In a sense, the purpose of the amendment is admirable, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl's intentions in tabling it are entirely benign. But it presupposes that there is a problem in the services which is sufficiently serious to warrant primary legislation.
  I really do not believe that that is the case. The services obviously consider it very important that there should be no inappropriate influence exercised in relation to whether or not to elect for trial by court martial or the possibility of withdrawing such an election. I am assured that if there were to be instances where undue pressure was found to have been brought, it would be taken very seriously and those responsible for such actions would be disciplined. The services are rightly proud of their system of discipline and they are rightly proud that that system is seen to be fair.
  The Army and the Royal Air Force currently have a procedure regulating the withdrawal of an accused's election for court martial, and that is laid down in instructions. During the process, the accused has full access to an adviser of his choice whose services will be available once the accused is charged. He will also have access to any legal advice which he has chosen to seek.
  1014
  More importantly, the instructions preclude certain persons from acting as the accused's adviser. Those include the commanding officer, the officer commanding, anyone involved with investigating or prosecuting the offence and anyone advising the officers in command. The current procedures seem to reflect the very system which the noble Earl believes should operate. However, that is in contrast to the provisions of the amendment which seem to presuppose some involvement by a representative of the commanding officer.
  It is difficult to disagree with the sentiments behind the amendment. However, I do not believe that the amendment achieves what it sets out to do. My doubts may be different in character but they mirror those of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; namely, that the amendment does not achieve the objective which the noble Earl stated nor does it usefully add anything to the impartial procedures already in place. The procedures are well understood and we do not believe that there is any reason to tamper with them. On the basis of the assurances that I have given to the noble Earl, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  5.30 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the response given by the Minister and for that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Perhaps I should have consulted my noble friend before tabling my amendment.
  I am not convinced that Clause 11 should not stand part. As I explained in moving the amendment, Clause 11 is not fatal to military ethos or the moral component of fighting power. But I am concerned that pressure can be applied to a soldier or serviceman to withdraw his election. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I hope that she will listen carefully to what I have said about the problem. In my experience, this problem can occur, particularly if a soldier or serviceman is being stupid and saying that he wants to elect for court martial when it is not in his best interests to do so. I am certain that heavy pressure would be placed on him to withdraw and that he would not be allowed to go through the court martial procedure. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
  Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 16A:
  After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
  PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
  (" . No provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall prevent proceedings being taken for offences against good order and military discipline.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that this is a starred amendment on a separate sheet of paper. I moved and withdrew the amendment in

  1015
  Committee and last week I tabled a shortened version, narrower in its effect. It was similar to Amendment No. 16A and read as follows:
  "No provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall prevent members of the Armed Forces from being found guilty of offences against good order and military discipline".
  That partly resolves a conflict we had when discussing Amendment No. 1 today and one which we have discussed in various ways in Committee. Last week I tabled a variation of the original amendment in that form. For some strange and invalid reason a clerk in the Public Bill Office refused to table it. I did not know of that until yesterday when I arrived here after 5 o'clock, so I went and discussed it. I was not convinced of the reasons given. However, in view of the short time available I did not press the matter but decided to table the amendment in its original form.
  In view of the valuable debate we had in Committee, I do not now press the amendment, However, I feel I should mention that at Third Reading I shall table the shortened version. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the starred amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 39, line 41, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 22. The purpose of these amendments is to reduce from 21 to 14 days the period in which an accused may lodge, with the summary appeal court, an appeal against the decisions of the commanding officer.
  I am sure that your Lordships will recall that in Committee I agreed to reconsider the period in which an appeal may be brought in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which he graciously agreed to withdraw at that time.
  In Committee I explained that we selected 21 days primarily because it seemed sensible to mirror the civilian system and also seemed a reasonable amount of time to allow an accused to secure legal advice, apply for legal aid and lodge an appeal.
  I was unable to accept the amendment of the noble Earl as the period of seven days, which he suggested, was likely to be incompatible with the convention as being too short a time in which to appeal. The possibility of large numbers of applicants seeking leave to appeal out of time or, indeed, of accused invariably lodging possibly ill-considered appeals simply to ensure that they were within time, seemed to me to be something we would all wish to avoid.
  However, as I indicated, that 21-day period is not set in stone. I am satisfied that 14 days is a period acceptable to both the accused and the services. That will give an accused two working weeks in which to prepare his or her appeal.
  The amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggest that the period should be reduced to 10 days. I believe that that figure is based on the statement I made in Committee that anything less than 10 days would probably be incompatible with the convention. I do not withdraw that statement; nor do I seek to contradict it with this amendment. However, I do not believe that 10 days is an appropriate period in which to allow someone to seek to organise an appeal. It is purely a matter of judgment and of where one believes the realistic time period should fall. We believe the period of 14 days to be reasonable. I do not believe there is any merit in giving someone a right and then making it difficult for such a person to exercise that right. Given the circumstances I have described, I believe that 14 days is a fair and reasonable period; fairer and more reasonable than the 10 days which the noble Earl asked us to consider in the subsequent amendment. I hope that he will feel able to support the government amendment on this point.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, half a loaf is better than no bread. Amendment No. 17 is not grouped with Amendment No. 18. I give notice at this stage that I still intend to move Amendment No. 18, but I have pleasure and thanks in accepting Amendment No. 17 tabled by the noble Baroness.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 39, line 41, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("ten").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a mildly improper story which I should not tell in your Lordships' House, the gist of which is that we establish a principle, and it only remains to determine the sum.
  On this side we started off in discussion with 48 hours against the Government's 21 days, though I cannot remember whether that was put on the face of the Bill. At an earlier stage of the Bill we went to seven days. I believe there is a real problem in that 10 days is too long. We want to get on with things. We may have two men who are given punishments, one of whom is prepared to accept it immediately and the other wishes time to think before he gives an answer.
  I still believe that 10 days is too long, but I am trying to establish a price for the Government. Noble Lords have been telling me throughout discussion on the Bill that communication is easy and that it is possible for a man to be given information, consultation and everything one would care to think of, as referred to in the amendment tabled by my noble friend. He can be told that he has every opportunity to talk, and I believe that can be done within 10 days. I urge the Government therefore to come to us and say "10 days".
  My noble friend, from whom I have taken over the moving of this amendment—slightly to his disgust—may want to add something to what I have said. I beg to move.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not sure of the applicability of the anecdote the noble

  1017
  Lord, Lord Burr ham, sought to draw to our attention in moving the amendment. However, I am made of sterner stuff than that!
  I do not have anything to add to the debate on the length of period that we should grant an accused person in order to lodge an appeal. It is a question of judgment and I do not believe that 10 days is a sufficient period n which to allow somebody to seek to organise an appeal. It is not necessarily a straightforward question of communication; it is a question of drawing together the grounds of appeal and obtaining legal advice. The benefit to the armed services in having properly drawn up appeals is one that we should not forget. Ill-considered appeals will not serve any purpose. We should reflect on the fact that in civilian life 21 days is considered to be the reasonable period for such appeals. To go to a period which is less than half that considered reasonable in civilian life is not a judgment we would wish to make.
  I reiterate: what is the point in giving somebody a right and at the same time making it extremely difficult for him or her to exercise that right? Moreover, although the noble Lord, in putting forward this amendment, believes it will simplify the Bill, in fact it will mean more work because there will be more ill-considered appeals and more grounds for people to feel that they have been badly treated.
  We have moved as far as we can to address the concerns of the noble Lord. We have done so in a spirit of compromise. If the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, does not recognise that spirit of compromise, I hope that others in your Lordships' House will. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, I do not remotely agree with the noble Baroness. She failed to recognise my point of what may happen when two people are convicted of the same crime and may want to be treated differently. However, I do not want to prolong this issue. I may have to decide whether or not to come back to it at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 40, line 12, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Schedule 3 [Amendments of 1955 Acts and 1957 Act relating to summary appeal courts]:
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
  Page 57, line 20, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen").
  Page 58, line 6, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 23:
  Line 4, at end insert (", to ensure compatibility) with the convention rights within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to a last throw in our attempts to establish once and for all whether or not this Bill does all that is required of it. The wording is that of the Public Bill Office and not that of my noble and learned friend, although we had something similar.
  The amendment is designed to put the responsibility for the compatibility of the Bill with the Human Rights Act and the convention fairly and squarely on the Government. On the front page of the Bill the noble Baroness made a statement that in her opinion the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We are looking to put it absolutely firmly on the face of the Bill in the Title. We are not trying to achieve anything that is not in the Bill, we are simply a little unhappy that the Bill does not do what it is designed to do. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I see the intention of my noble friend in moving this amendment. It is desirable that the Long Title should in some way deal with the natural incompatibility between the Human Rights Act and maintaining military discipline.
  Those concerned, whether commanding officers or members of courts martial, will have to give priority to the maintenance of military discipline. I am doubtful—with deep respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon who is a distinguished Scottish lawyer, and to my noble friend Lord Burnham—whether the word "compatibility" achieves that purpose. I have some doubt about that. I suggest therefore that my noble friend does not press the amendment at this stage. But, in the light of this discussion and what the noble Baroness may say, another amendment may be tabled at Third Reading which achieves his purpose even better.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, during all our debates so far on this Bill I have sought to make it clear that we place great store on ensuring that all our personnel benefit from their convention rights. As your Lordships are well aware, the purpose of this Bill is to address concerns about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, we do not believe it is necessary to state that in the Long Title.
  To include this amendment would only be a duplication of what the Human Rights Act 1998 already provides; that is, that all primary legislation is required to be read,
  "in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights".
  That requirement is contained in Section 3 of the Human Rights Act and removes any need for provisions to be included in new Bills, stating that one

  1019
  of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure compatibility. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
  Lord Burnham: My Lords, was it the Snark who said,
  "What I tell you three times is true"?
  I may have got that wrong.
  I feel that there would be no damage in the Government re-reiterating that this Bill accords with the European Convention on Human Rights. I listened to what the noble Baroness said, and possibly with even more care to what my noble friend said. In the light of their working in unison, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
  5.49 p.m.
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Methuen) in the Chair.]
  Clause 68 [Amendment of Children Act 1989]:
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 128ZA:
  Page 30, leave out lines 14 to 22.
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may, first, welcome the Minister to Part V of the Bill, as we proceed not at a huge but I hope reasonable pace. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 173A. Both amendments relate to exemptions under Clause 68 of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 128ZA relates effectively to nannies. There are up to 100,000 nannies working in the UK, but there is no statutory requirement for a nanny or an au pair to have any training or specific qualifications. Nannies and au pairs are the only child carers not to face some mandatory form of registration. Child minders and day-care facilities will be registered and inspected by the new branch of Ofsted.
  New Clause 79A of the Children Act, which will be inserted by this Bill, excludes nannies, except where they look after the children of more than two families, and au pairs from the provisions of the Care Standards Bill. In our view, and in that of a number of voluntary organisations in the field, it is unacceptable that this Bill will improve the standards of only some forms of childcare but not of others. Children need protection
  1020
  in all its forms. This Bill provides an ideal opportunity to extend regulation to nannies and au pairs to safeguard children in these settings. We do not accept the Government's current argument that such regulation would be bureaucratically impossible.
  Amendment No. 173A is designed to establish whether the current exemption for independent schools under paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 will continue to apply. This currently allows any institution registered as an independent school with more than five children aged over five and which employs a qualified teacher not to be subject to regulations and guidance under the Children Act 1989 and under the proposals contained in this Bill. There is concern that such a loophole would potentially allow deregistered day-care facilities to set themselves up as independent schools, employ a qualified teacher and take on a large number of children under the age of five without having to follow regulations and guidance.
  I believe that the department has indicated that an amendment may be tabled to allow for separate regulations on independent schools which would close the loophole. It has also indicated that HMI inspections of independent schools with children under five already ensure that such schools follow current regulations and guidance; and, indeed, that they will be served a notice if they do not. In addition, I understand that a consultation exercise is planned for the spring on independent schools and that this issue will be consulted upon as part of that wider process. I look forward to hearing the Minister's elucidation in that respect. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to commend the Government for sticking to their guns on the question of the au pair. This is not always a straightforward relationship. I should perhaps declare an interest here and say that my wife employed a number of very satisfactory au pairs, but with differing degrees of experience. It is an essentially personal relationship; it is an extension of the family. In the ordinary au pair situation, the au pair, who is almost always a girl—but not necessarily—lives with the family, eats with the family and has an understanding as to how much of her time is to be spent looking after the children and how much is available for doing courses (often English-language courses) or for other activities.
  If the Government take the view that to try to regulate this activity is unacceptably bureaucratic, I can only reiterate, "Hear, hear!" If ever there were a case of proportionality, this is it. There are a few unfortunate cases, which always seem to attract newspaper headlines because there is something newsworthy about the au pair relationship. However, they represent a tiny number of the totality of families who have found the au pair arrangement eminently satisfactory. I strongly resist any suggestion that there should now be an entirely new extension of childcare requiring the registration, and all the rest of the paraphernalia, of au pairs. If I may put it this way, I hope that the Government will stick to their guns and

  1021
  not be beguiled by what I am sure will be a very eloquent case made by some of the interest groups and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
  Lord Bach: Perhaps I may, first, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for welcoming me to this Committee. I say that with some reservation because I know that noble Lords on both the Front and Back-Benches are expects in the field. Therefore, I approach the matter with some caution. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words.
  In responding to the noble Lord's amendments, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 128A tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I dc so because all three amendments in this group deal with providers exempted from the requirement to register as either child minders or day-care providers tinder the new Part XA to the Children Act.
  The effect of Amendment No. 128ZA would be to bring childcare provided in the parents' home under the regulation or Ofsted, or the assembly, while Amendment No. 173A would bring in any day care provided by independent schools. The Government fully understand the concerns which lie behind these amendments, although we take a different approach to tackling them. It may be helpful to the Committee if I set out briefly our plans in respect of these important issues.
  As regards Amendment No. 128ZA, the Government believe that care provided in the parents' home, such as that provided by nannies, baby sitters and au pairs, should not be subject to regulation in the same way as that provided by professional child minders, nurseries, playgroups, crèches, and so on. We have sought—and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may get some satisfaction from this—a less bureaucratic approach, which, nevertheless, strengthens safeguards for children looked after in the home.
  Yesterday, the Minister for Employment and Equal Opportunities, Margaret Hodge, announced that the new guidance for nanny agencies of the Department for Education and Employment will be published in the spring of this year. The guidance will underpin the revised regulations governing all employment agencies to be issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. The guidance will include advice on areas such as identity checks and verification of a candidate's right to work; further detailed advice about checking work histories, qualifications and references; advice about interviewing candidates; and placing candidates with suitable employers.
  The Department for Education and Employment has worked closely with nanny agencies to draft a code of practice which will form the basis of the new guidance. I am sure that it will provide parents and agencies with the help that they need to minimise the risk of children being cared for by unsuitable nannies. In addition, last year the department, in collaboration with the Daycare Trust and the National Early Years Network, issued Need a Nanny, a guide for parents
  1022
  giving the advice and information that they need to check the background and suitability of a nanny before offering employment.
  We believe that there are practical problems to the regulation of nannies or the establishment of a register. For example, it would be very difficult to determine what constitutes a "good" nanny. Who would decide—and on what basis—whether someone was removed from a register? Would that be decided on the basis of the parents' word alone? Nannies can move from post to post quite regularly. It would be extremely difficult to keep a register up to date. We do not believe that it would be in anyone's interests to have a register that did not work and which may lull parents into a false sense of security. We believe in short that unless a register works it is better not to have a register at all.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 173A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We share the concern that provision of day care in independent schools is not regulated to the same prescribed standards as other day care providers. That is why we have taken a power in the new Schedule 9A in Schedule 2 to this Bill to prescribe circumstances in which the exemption will not apply.
  We recognise that some may wish to see the exemption done away with in this Bill. However, we believe that in the first instance it is appropriate to consult the independent schools sector on this issue. As part of a wider review of the regulation of independent schools, the department is to carry out a consultation exercise this year. The consultation will seek views on strengthening the existing requirements for day care in independent schools to bring them into line with those required in other settings. The department will make proposals following the outcome of that exercise and until that process is complete it would not be sensible or right simply to remove the exemption.
  I turn now to the Government's Amendment No. 128A. This amendment relates to the exemption from regulation of informal evening baby-sitting arrangements provided away from the parents' home. It is necessary because, as drafted, the current wording would unintentionally exempt much professional after-school care provision from regulation.
  We believe that it is important to ensure that informal arrangements such as evening baby-sitting are exempt from regulation and that we avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens whenever that is possible. However, it is not our intention to exempt from regulation professional arrangements for after-school care—a form of care which, as the Committee will know, is vital to so many working parents.
  The amendment is therefore essentially a correction which restructures current wording to prevent the existing two-hour disregard in new Section 79A(7) being "added" to the evening baby-sitting exemption over two days, thereby extending the total exemption period from 4 p.m. on day one until 2 a.m. on day two.

  1023
  In simple language the net effect would be to restrict the baby-sitting exemption from 6 p.m. until 2 a.m. instead of 4 p.m. to 2 a.m.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his considered response. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I cannot say that I have experience of employing nannies or au pairs. Indeed I cannot comment on his statement that only a small number of problems arise with au pairs or nannies and that essentially they are regarded as part of the family. However, I am concerned about the quality of care that they provide. If they are considered to be members of a family and enjoy a huge amount of trust, that is precisely where problems may arise. I appreciate the Minister saying that he accepted the concerns that have been expressed even if the way that he mentioned of dealing with those concerns was rather different from what has been suggested by others. I was grateful to the Minister for setting out how he believes the safeguards are being strengthened in terms of the new guidance for nanny agencies which is shortly to be issued.
  I believe that the best way to deal with the amendment is to consider that guidance in detail. I hope that it will be issued as the Bill progresses through this Chamber and possibly before Report stage. That would be helpful. Then one would be able to judge whether the regulation of nanny agencies will be tightened up in the way that the Minister suggested. I accept that practical problems arise when one deals with nannies and au pairs in individual households. However, it is important to find some means to ensure that standards in this area are maintained and improved.
  I also thank the Minister for his response to Amendment No. 173A to new Schedule 9A. I very much hope that the consultation will be designed to be completed to enable time to be given—in this Chamber or in another place—to consider its conclusions and to table suitable amendments to the Bill, if that is considered appropriate. If, following the consultation, conclusions were reached that a different kind of exemption would be appropriate, it would be unfortunate not then to be able to amend the Bill. That would represent a missed opportunity. I am not sure what future opportunity could easily be found to amend the legislation if we miss the opportunity to do so as the Bill progresses through Parliament. I hope that the consultation will be speedily completed. The Minister mentioned the spring but I do not know whether he can give us a further indication as to when the consultation might be completed. The Minister does not indicate any knowledge of that. I shall withdraw the amendment but look forward to further information on that point at a future date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No, 128A:
  Page 30, line 38, leave out from ("any") to ("is") in line 39 and insert ("day on which he does not act as a child minder at any time between 2 am and 6 pm").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 129A:
  Page 30, line 42, leave out from ("is") to end of line 45 and insert ("the National Care Standards Commission").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to new Section 79B on page 30 of the Bill. I hope that I may be permitted to remind the Committee that the Bill is entitled the Care Standards Bill. It seems to me that the title of the Bill is entirely correct in that for the most part its aim is to strengthen the quality, reliability and effectiveness of care—mainly social care—in this country. It is not an education Bill. This is the only section of the Bill which refers to education. In my view it sticks out like a sore thumb. There is no reason given for this unexpected and, what seems to me, irrational change.
  This is a serious matter; it is about the care standards experienced by many thousands of very young children. When parents leave their children with a child minder, often for many hours of the week, they need to have confidence not only that the child minder has been properly registered but also that the standard of child care practice is of a good quality. Some very young children spend most of their waking hours in the care of child minders. Therefore over the years the Department of Health has gone to great lengths to establish good guidance on child care practice, reinforced by legislation and regulation, and monitored through an agreed process of inspection.
  I have no doubt, however, that the system of inspection and regulation of child minders can be improved, and would be improved, by the work and experience of the national care standards commission which the Bill establishes. I hope that the Committee will excuse some unparliamentary language when I say that frankly it seems to me just plain "daft" now to transfer this task of regulation and inspection to the Chief Inspector of Schools. I can see no relationship between the task of regulating and inspecting child minding and that of the Chief Inspector of Schools.
  In order to emphasise that child minding is about social care and about good child care practice, and certainly not about education, I remind the Committee that it is not unusual for a social services department to reach an agreement with a parent of a young child who may be at risk that the child should be placed with a child minder. There are in this country some quite exceptional child minders who not only contribute to the assessment of the development needs of the child but also work ably with the parents. This is good child care practice at its best.
  I hope that, although I have expressed my concerns with brevity, the Government will be willing to look again at this proposal because I feel deeply troubled as regards transferring the regulation and inspection of

  1025
  child minders at this stage from the Department of Health and social care specialists to the Chief Inspector of Schools. I beg to move.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I had not considered fully all the implications when we discussed this matter at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, had the courtesy to write to me. I raised the issue of the resources that would be available to Ofsted and I received some assurance that these would be considered. However, it seems to me that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the practicalities are extremely powerful in these circumstances. My arguments at that stage were about resources, but if one adds the two arguments together, one has a very powerful case against transferring to Ofsted.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I say straightaway that he knows a thousand times more about this subject than I do.
  I have the impression that this extension of the remit of Ofsted has been greeted with some derision in certain circles. I think I am right in saying that the phrase "Oftot" has been used by some commentators.
  The noble Lord made the case that this is primarily a matter of care standards; it is not primarily a matter of education. I entirely concede that a good childminder is perfectly capable of assisting in the education process of a child, but so are the parents. Anyone who has the care of a child—if he or she is doing so properly—is constantly aware that he or she is actually promoting the child's education in the widest possible sense.
  That does not seem to me to be a matter that lies easily within the remit of Ofsted. To my mind, since it was set up by the previous administration, Ofsted has established its authority, its expertise, its credibility and its acceptability in a most remarkable way. However, it is essentially concerned with the formal education of children in schools. This extension to becoming the authority responsible for monitoring childcare, and day care by childminders of the kind we are talking about, would be of an entirely different character. To my mind, the matter essentially lies within the scope of the new care standards commission, which, after all, has a range of similar objectives in relation to other establishments.
  Quite frankly, I am puzzled and astonished as to why the Government should consider that Ofsted is the right home for this particular extension. I agree that there should be proper control of standards, proper monitoring and proper registration, but it does not seem to me that that is an Ofsted function; it should be a function of the new commission. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, is right. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to an argument coming from such an authoritative source.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bach: We know of the great expertise in this field of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and any amendment he moves will of course be treated seriously.
  On this occasion he raises an important issue: which body should have responsibility for the regulation of day care and childminding in England. I am grateful for the opportunity he gives to set out the Government's position on this matter and to attempt to allay any concerns which may have arisen as a consequence of the decision to transfer the regulatory function to Ofsted.
  That the regulatory function—and, in particular, the consistent application of standards—should be carried out by a single national body rather than by 150 individual local authorities, as at present, is, I venture to suggest, not in question. Responses to the Government's consultation in 1998 on the regulation of childcare showed clearly the importance attached to the delivery of regulation being consistent across the country; nor is there any doubt that integrating day care regulation and nursery education inspection will reduce burdens on providers.
  Having a single regulatory authority operating the national standards will ensure that a child's welfare and safety will no longer be a matter of geography but one of consistency across the country. We believe that the present system has become, in effect, one of localised regulation, which has led to widely varying interpretations of guidance in different parts of the country. A national framework will help to ensure a level playing field for providers and will deliver clarity for both the regulated and the regulator.
  In reaching its decision on which body should be responsible for regulation, the Government were bound to be aware of some people's perceptions of Ofsted, particularly having heard the notable contributions to the debate today. I refer, for example, to the perception that Ofsted has no experience of the provision of childcare and that, as a consequence, this will lead to an education "take-over". We acknowledge that that is an important concern. It is one which all who have spoken to the amendment so far have reiterated.
  The Government's decision to cast Ofsted in the role of regulator does not ignore these concerns and it is important that I explain the rationale behind the decision. I should also like to reassure the noble Lord, and others who share his concerns, that the well-being of our children will remain the highest priority under the new and distinct early years directorate, which will be established within Ofsted and headed by the early years director, a new post created to carry out this important work.
  First, and most importantly, the legislative provision set out in the Children Act 1989, which this Bill seeks to improve further, presents a very clear framework to ensure that the care, welfare and development of children is at the heart of the regulatory function. A new framework of standards will be set by the Government for the provision of care

  1027
  and Ofsted will work within this framework. These legal responsibilities simply cannot be ignored or played down, and there is no doubt that Ofsted has every intention of fulfilling its legal duties in this respect.
  I must also make it clear that there is no intention of ignoring or marginalising the vast amount of expertise of the staff currently involved in this work. It is the Government's intention that local authority inspectors, managers and administrative staff will be given the opportunity to transfer to the new early years directorate, bringing with them their knowledge and experience. It is essential that the best of the existing system is maintained in the new one. The necessary competence to carry this forward is currently vested largely with those working in the local authorities.
  I do not think it is unparliamentary language—nor do I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said was unparliamentary—to put the matter directly. Ofsted does not have hundreds of staff hidden away waiting to take on this work. The early years directorate will achieve greater success if many of those doing the job now opt to continue to do it.
  In coming to their decision, the Government had regard to the burden that dual inspection placed on many providers. Bringing together the regulation and inspection systems for early years childcare and education in England signals an end to the confusion and duplication which operating two separate regimes has created.
  There are a number of other practical considerations to take into account. Ofsted has experience of inspecting new areas of provisions and of successfully putting in place the means to do this. In 1992, Ofsted was given the task of setting up an independent system of school inspection. It had to devise a framework for inspection applicable across all schools, recruit sufficient numbers of suitable inspectors and ensure that they were appropriately trained in the framework and in quality assurance throughout the whole process. We believe that this was done successfully, not only meeting the targets but achieving quality inspections.
  When Ofsted was given the function of inspecting nursery education, that was also new to them. They have made a success of this by drawing upon and harnessing the expertise of those in that sector and training them for the purposes of raising and ensuring the standards of education for four year-olds, now being extended to cover three year- olds. Inspection of nursery education has also been generally successful because Ofsted has worked in close partnership with providers and relevant bodies such as early years development and childcare partnerships in this sector.
  Ofsted has undoubted considerable experience in driving up standards. It has always delivered what has been asked of it and it has never failed to meet its targets. Ofsted has a national framework for education inspections and, most important, it already has in place a national and regional organisational structure.
  1028
  Furthermore, Ofsted has experience of publishing inspection reports—an important aspect of the new legislative framework—enabling providers and parents to see the quality of provision at present and what the provider needs to do to make it better. Ofsted has experience of producing thematic reports on more general trends in the provision of education. These types of reports will be important in giving an overview of the national position as regards childminding and day-care provision.
  This experience will be invaluable in bringing together the best of two existing systems of regulation and so maintaining the highest standards in both welfare and education.
  I have taken a little time to explain the Government's rationale in the decision they have made. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken are happy with this explanation of how the Government came to their decision on Ofsted and how Ofsted will operate within the new framework. I hope also that the noble Lord will consider what I have said and will take the opportunity—which of course he knows exists—to meet with myself and others to discuss further this Government decision in the weeks ahead.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord, Lord Laming, responds to the Minister, I should like to make two points and to ask one question. I shall start with my question. The Minister laid great stress on not only the desirability but the fact that it would be essential that those who have gained great expertise in this field—principally in local authorities—will be those who will take up the staff posts on offer in the early years directorate. Has the Minister any idea of what proportion of those people will come from local government departments other than the social services department? How many will come from the education department of a local authority? My guess is probably very few indeed, because this area has always been seen to be a social services activity.
  First, the Minister made a powerful case, which I do not challenge for one moment, of the desirability of setting national standards in this area. If I may say so, much of his speech was directed to an argument that no one who spoke in the preceding debate had addressed. We accept that point as taken for granted. We are concerned why the area of childminding should in future be regarded as an extension of the education responsibilities rather than the welfare responsibilities of an authority.
  Secondly, I sometimes feel that it is a pity that Ministers do not have a second pair of eyes in the back of their shoulders. If, when the Minister was speaking, he had seen the reaction of some very experienced noble Lords sitting more behind his right shoulder than behind his left, I believe that he would have advanced his arguments with rather less confidence. Before we finish the debate, I hope that the Minister will give us some indication that he is now prepared to listen to the arguments rather than merely attempt to

  1029
  persuade the Committee. This is an important matter and I am deeply unhappy about the way the Government have chosen to move forward.
  Lord Bach: I believe there was a question in the comments of the noble Lord. In one regard in particular, let me say that we accept that what has happened under the existing circumstances has not always been a social services responsibility. Around one-third and rising of inspection units are now based in education departments.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Two-thirds in social services.
  Lord Bach: That is so. The noble Lord said that most of my speech was directed towards an argument with which everyone agreed. On reflection, perhaps the noble Lord may accept that part of my speech sought to lay the ground on the matter. However, I was attempting to deal with those elements of the Government's decision that are controversial.
  The transfer of staff will be a TUPE transfer. With his great experience in the field of local government, the noble Lord will understand that point. Those currently doing the job will transfer from their current positions as a matter of local authority organisation.
  What the noble Lord does not seem able to accept—and this may also be true of other critics—is that the idea that nursery education and childcare can be kept apart somehow and that the one should not touch upon the other is a notion the Government believe to be out of date. The two parts must be brought together. The question then remains of who is best placed to bring them together. We are of the opinion that allowing Ofsted to take responsibility for this task does not in any way detract from the responsibility of ensuring that childcare and child welfare is an essential part of our programme.
  While I may not have eyes in the back of my head, I hope that, from where I am standing, I can recognise that real concerns have been expressed about this issue. Of course the Government will continue to listen to those concerns. The noble Lord heard me make that point in my speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, I cannot suggest for a moment that the Government are minded to change their mind on the decision to give Ofsted the responsibility, under the new directorate, to look at this field. However, we shall continue to listen to the arguments.
  Lord Laming: I am extremely grateful for the powerful support I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who of course has vast experience in this field. I am grateful also to the Minister for his detailed response, even if he does think that I am out of date on this matter.
  First, I have no disagreement with the Minister on the need for uniformity and I accept that that is the reason that lies behind the Government's decision to establish a national care standards commission. That will achieve the very uniformity that formed a key plank in the Minister's response.
  1030
  Secondly, I should like to make clear that I make no criticism of Ofsted as a body that is suitable for the inspection of education. Furthermore, I do not believe that any other contributors to the debate have doubts about that body. Many of the noble Lord's points about the qualities of Ofsted are not in dispute. The Minister said that Ofsted publishes all its reports. Well, the national care commission will do so as well. Indeed, an amendment to that effect standing in my name was considered earlier in the Committee's consideration of these matters. There is no dispute about the benefits of uniformity and there is certainly no dispute about the need for reports to be published; nor is there any dispute about the need to have good national standards.
  However, I regret to say that the Minister has failed to convince me on the need to recognise that care in a childminder's home is quite different from nursery education. There is every reason for having two systems. One should deal with childcare practice and childcare standards. That is what we should expect good parents to provide for a very young child in their own home. That is different from what we expect in nursery education or in other forms of education. It is entirely right that there are two separate systems. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly said, there is every reason why the two will come together at particular points, as good parents come together with the education system at particular points. However, we should not try to blur the distinction between the two functions; nor should we attempt to weaken good childcare practice at this stage. I believe that this measure, however well intended, will seriously weaken childminding in this country. I have no doubt about the need to improve childminding, but the way to do that is by building on existing practice and doing that through the national care standards commission.
  The Minister kindly said that there can be further discussions on this point. I welcome that opportunity for further discussions. I shall approach those discussions having been reinforced in my belief that the Bill is wrong in this regard. While I am happy at this stage to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, I hope very much that we can continue the dialogue elsewhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 129B:
  Page 31, line 5, leave out ("and every prescribed person").
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in moving Amendments Nos. 129B, 129C and 129D, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 129DA and 173B.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is not the correct procedure that the Minister should move the first amendment in the group and not the others? He is speaking to the others.

  1031
  I hesitate to intervene but I think that we should get these matters right. If I am right—I believe that I am—I hope that the Minister will accord with that.
  Lord Bach: The noble Lord is of course right. I am extremely grateful to him for putting me right. I hope that I do not make that mistake again.
  In moving the first of the amendments, I shall speak to the others. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 129DA and 173B, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. These amendments together relate to important issues concerning suitability—
  Lord Clement-Jones: On a matter of procedure, I understood that the Minister would normally move the lead government amendment, speak to the other government amendments and then we would have the opportunity to speak to our own amendments—not moving them but speaking to them—and that the Minister would respond at the end. If I have that wrong, the noble Lord can correct me.
  Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, although I still have at the back of my mind his welcome to me a few minutes ago. I think that I was right to be cautious.
  I shall do precisely what the noble Lord said. The purpose of Amendment No. 129B is to remove an unnecessary regulation-making power in relation to the suitability of persons. The power as drafted allows the Secretary of State to prescribe the people—other than the childminder and anyone else looking after the children—who must meet the requirement to be suitable to look after children under the age of eight. This would be a necessary qualification of registration. However, the power was designed particularly to catch proprietors, managers and committee members of day care establishments who may from time to time have occasion to look after children under the age of eight. This has been unnecessarily replicated at what will be new Section 79B(3) of the Children Act 1989 to apply to a childminder's premises and should be removed.
  Amendments Nos. 129C and 129D deal with the question of suitability of equipment. These are correcting amendments which seek to clarify that a person is not qualified for registration unless equipment in day care and childminding settings is not only in good condition but is also appropriate. The amendments will improve the Bill and ensure that equipment—for example, toys—is appropriate to the age and ability of the children. That will help to prevent those toys designed for older children—for example, those with very small parts—being made available to babies. I beg to move.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for arranging matters so as to allow me to speak to Amendment No. 129DA. My noble friend Lady Barker will speak to Amendment No. 173B. I am sure that the Minister will rewrite his reply after hearing my arguments.
  1032
  The amendment is designed to establish how the new clauses regulating the registration of childminding and day care will work. They are designed to establish that inclusion of a registered person on the Section 1 list under the Protection of Children Act 1999, along with other lists and conditions, is not explicitly a pre-condition of registration of childminding and day care services. It is clear from the clauses what events give rise to disqualification. But additional to that, we propose that there is a positive approach of ensuring that certain categories of person are not included and cannot be registered. In a sense, the amendment is designed to elicit whether that is explicitly the case in the Bill. For that reason we have included in the amendment a rather long subsection which seeks to define someone who is not considered suitable right at the very outset for the purpose of registration, so that rather than awaiting disqualification, one never registers these people in the first place.
  Baroness Barker: In seeking to move Amendment No. 173B—
  Lord Clement-Jones: Speak to!
  Baroness Barker: I was going to say to the Minister that it is comforting to know that someone else is about as proficient as I am in the procedures of the House.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will take an interest in Amendment No. 173B, given that he has just spoken about the difference between day care and childminding facilities and schools. This amendment seeks to do precisely the opposite. It seeks to establish whether those in charge of childminding and day care facilities should have the same responsibilities as schools for child protection.
  Throughout our debates a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Laming, have spoken very much from the point of view of people who are or have been practitioners. I take a rather pragmatic view of this issue. Although I have not worked in the field of the provision of children's services, I am given to understand by those who do that being aware of children exhibiting signs of having been abused is very common and ordinary within daycare and childminding settings and settings where young children are engaged in play.
  In proposing the amendment, it is therefore our intention to find out whether childminders and people in the provision of day care for small children will have the same duty of care and child protection as do schools.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wish to ask about "appropriateness". I should explain, rather than declaring an interest, where I come from. I chair a charitable trust connected with Queen Mary and Westfield College, east London. One of the objectives of the trust is to assist in the education of women, which was the role of Westfield College before the merger.

  1033
  One of the earliest decisions my trust took was to finance a creche for the benefit of the very young children of both staff and students. I was surprised to find that our college was one of the few in London University that did not already have a crèhe. I ask a question in relation to some of the experiences we had with that and the problem of satisfying the local authority that the facilities fulfilled the requirements. We are talking about "appropriateness", the Minister referred to equipment being suitable for young children. Some of the requirements of the local authority for the establishment of the créche went some way beyond what those responsible for running it considered reasonable in the circumstances. One could have taken the matter to appeal, I suppose, but in the end the trust financed the necessary changes.
  One point was that the local authority required the uncovered open area outside to be covered in a specially soft and resilient covering so that, if the poor little people fell over, they did not bruise themselves. One can understand the desire of the regulator constantly to want to guard against every conceivable risk. My feeling is that, if a child falls over and hurts itself, it learns not to do it again. That is part of growing up.
  I should be sorry if, as a result of the merger of responsibilities for nursery schools and similar establishments with responsibilities for child minders, one would have the same attitude spilling over into the provision of child minding, requiring child minders to install every conceivable measure for the avoidance of any possible injury to children in their care. It could not be reasonable and if one went too far down that road, one would end up destroying the facility. People would say, "I'm sorry, I can't do this, I can't afford what is necessary". I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the requirements for equipment, premises and the other matters mentioned in the subsection for child minders will be appropriate and proportional to the service provided. That is the kind of thing lying behind the anxieties expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Laming, Lord Clement-Jones and myself on the previous amendment. We have had experience of such high standards being imposed on a créche and we wonder whether that will happen to every child minder in the land. It cannot be in the interests of the children and parents or of the achievement of high standards.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I wish to ask a question about Amendment No. 129DA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. As I understood him, he said that the people listed in paragraphs (a) to (j) are not suitable, but other people may also be unsuitable even though they do not fall into any of those categories. I venture to suggest that, as his amendment is drafted, there is a nasty risk that no one could be held to be unsuitable unless he fell into one of those categories. The list is likely to be construed as exclusive. A person who is unsuitable on general
  1034
  grounds but does not fall into those categories could no longer be held to be included if the amendment were accepted.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. There are defects in the drafting in that respect and we do not wish to curtail other ways in which someone would be not suitable for the purpose of that clause. At this stage, as so often at Committee stage, the amendment is designed to establish a principle.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Laming: I wish to say something in this important debate. There was a time when it was extremely difficult to get child minders to register. There was a great resistance to registration and a feeling among many child minders that, if they registered, then all manner of bureaucratic demands would be made of them, some expensive, as has been described.
  The way in which it was possible to persuade childminders to register was through working in partnership with them in ensuring that their talents and experience as parents were used positively and creatively in parenting someone else's child during the time they had that responsibility.
  The situation requires not only sensitivity to the issues but also understanding of the position of a child minder, not only in terms of the enormous responsibilities a childminder takes on for someone else's child, but also in terms of the kind of support and help they need.
  When it comes to dealing with children who may be thought to be at risk or children who have special needs, working in partnership with childminders requires particular skills. It seems to me that the amendments underline the points already made. I hope that the Minister will view the amendments as a positive contribution to the debate.
  Lord Bach: I shall attempt first to deal with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on his fear that "appropriate" may be so harshly defined that too harsh standards are set. I can give him the assurance that he sought, but we are determined to have national minimum standards and it is important that equipment is appropriate. However, I believe that he need not worry too much about what he fears.
  I deal now with Amendment No. 129DA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke. It refers to the definition of suitability of persons to look after children under the age of eight. The Committee will know that the Bill currently provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the grounds on which people will be disqualified from being registered. Schedule 2 makes it clear that the grounds may include all matters listed in the amendment. To that extent, it replicates existing regulation-making powers and seeks to stipulate the definition of suitability on the face of the Bill. While regulations will need to cover a wide range of issues to

  1035
  be taken into account, I believe that the Committee would agree that it would be cumbersome to seek to specify every issue in the Bill which we may want to cover.
  The issue of which persons are suitable to look after young children is a fundamental part of the revised regime that this Bill will create. It is essential that we ensure that we do not constrain unnecessarily the matters which should be taken into account when day care providers and child minders seek to register to care for young children. We need to have flexibility to respond effectively to new developments which may arise in future for protecting children from harm; for example, new arrangements for identifying and recording those deemed unsuitable to work with children. We believe that the regulation-making power set out in the Bill gives us that flexibility.
  It is of crucial importance that a proper balance is struck between safety and unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. We believe that such detail is not appropriate for primary legislation. For example, it will not be necessary to include all the matters listed in the amendment as grounds for disqualification, since the Government intend to introduce legislation in a crime and public protection Bill in this Session to implement the recommendations of the inter-departmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children. When that Bill comes before this House, it will provide that a person who is convicted of one of a number of offences against children (to be specified) is to be banned from working with children. A similar ban will apply to persons who are included on the Department of Health's new list or the Department for Education and Employment's List 99 because they are unsuitable to work with children. By that disqualification the person is banned from becoming a day care provider or child minder. There is therefore no requirement to consider such a person's suitability, which is the test applied to each application for registration.
  Amendment No. 173B, which was spoken to with such proficiency by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, draws our attention to a very important and fundamental principle of Children Act regulation: child protection. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity to state the Government's position on this important matter. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that this Bill already includes powers for us to make regulations to govern the activities of registered persons who act as child minders or provide day care and to impose duties on the chief inspector to have regard to the standards prescribed in regulations. We therefore question the need for a specific reference to such matters as are set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. We urge that such detail is not appropriate for primary legislation.
  I restate the commitment of the Government to consult widely on new national standards for the regulation of day care providers and child minders. Child protection and behaviour management are exactly the kinds of issue on which we want to gain a
  1036
  wider view over the next few months. The Government are committed to considering the responses carefully. However, the Government believe that it is inappropriate to pre-empt that consultation by committing themselves now to the details of the national standards and the regulations that they will underpin. Having made those comments on the two amendments that have been spoken to, the Government are grateful to the noble Lord and noble Baroness for having raised what are undoubtedly very important issues.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 129C and 129D:
  Page 31, line 12, at end insert ("and appropriateness").
  Page 31, line 29, after second ("condition") insert ("and appropriateness").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 129DA not moved.]
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 129DB:
  Page 32, line 5, after ("Inspector") insert (", early years development and childcare partnerships").
  The noble Lord said: I failed to mention in the context of the previous set of amendments my gratitude to the Minister for having taken the trouble to write in advance of the government amendments.
  Amendment No. 129DB is concerned with consultation provisions related to regulations applicable to child minders and day care providers. In particular, the amendment is designed to elicit from the Government the consultation mechanisms and the way in which they propose to introduce early years development and child care partnerships. Early years development and childcare partnerships were initiated in 1998 as a result of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. As I understand it, each local authority, at least in England, now has an operational partnership. All produced a comprehensive early years development and child care plan by the winter of 1999. I believe that a second plan is being prepared by all of them for 2000–2001.
  The responsibilities which the local authorities share with the partnerships include not only the production of the required number of annual reports but also a complementary annual childcare audit and detailed development and expansion programmes to cover every aspect of early years and childcare services, including training and support for the development of quality. I understand that at least 25 of the 148 partnerships and their respective authorities have begun to produce local quality assurance schemes, such as the Sheffield Kitemark. Many others are in train.
  I also understand that each partnership must have a chair and comprise local people who represent all groups of providers, employers and parents. They are beginning to develop as active local forums within which parents and other key stakeholders can formulate a local vision for the provision of services

  1037
  for children in their particular areas. It is arguable that every aspect of a partnership's responsibilities impacts on the ultimate quality of the care and learning support received by the children in its area. There must be a clear linkage—this is the purpose of the amendment—between the role of the partnership and Ofsted as the external regulator, whatever one may think of that body (one hastens to add) as performing that role. That will offer significant added value to the existing Ofsted organisation and evidence a real measure of local partnership with parents and providers. I beg to move.
  Earl Howe: In rising to speak to Amendment No. 135, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. One of the inevitable consequences of this part of the Bill is that the role of local authorities will be considerably reduced. But it would be very foolish if the corporate wisdom, as it were, of local authority registration and inspection teams was allowed to evaporate. It is that element of local knowledge, and often considerable development and support work, which will be immensely valuable to Ofsted. If anything, I believe that the local dimension will be required even more than before with Ofsted operating, as inevitably it will be, on a somewhat less localised basis than the present inspection teams. Ofsted will need all the support that it can get in its regulatory role to ensure that it is as close as it can be to each of the many cultures that influence early years education and child care in various ways.
  While the wording of my amendment is somewhat more general than that of Amendment No. 129DB, its intended purpose is very similar. I too am interested to learn from the Minister what role he sees for early years development and child care partnerships. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that they should be consulted from the outset not only for what they can bring to the table in terms of effective planning but for the advice that they can give from the perspective of quality assurance. Most people agree that these partnerships act as an effective channel to convey parental issues and concerns.
  Lord Laming: I do not want to give the impression that I have lost hope on the fundamental point. I support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about ensuring that the current experience and philosophy of many, although not all, local authorities are available in whatever future arrangement is decided upon.
  Lord Bach: I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 134B in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Obviously, partnerships are intended to play a very important role in the system that is developing.
  Amendment No. 129DB would require the Secretary of State to consult early years development and childcare partnerships before making regulations governing the activities of registered providers. The
  1038
  regulations in question may cover how providers deliver their services or how Ofsted fulfils its regulatory function. The provision in the Bill as drafted requires consultation with Ofsted and enables the Secretary of State to consult any other party he (the Secretary of State) considers appropriate.
  We are sure that it will often be the case that partnerships prove a valuable source of expertise. However, it may not be appropriate to burden partnerships with the requirement to consider proposals for regulation in every case; for example, where the regulations under consideration relate to how Ofsted fulfils its regulatory functions. We therefore think it more sensible to allow the Secretary of State to use his discretion on a case by case basis.
  The intention of the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is to ensure that local authorities in England co-operate with the chief inspector. We believe that that is a desirable requirement. A similar provision already exists in the Children Act which requires authorities to assist each other under the present regulatory system. It is only sensible that this requirement should be carried forward when Ofsted assumes the role of regulator. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Clause 68 as proposed. The objective of the amendment is achieved already in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which inserts a new Schedule 9A into the Children Act. Paragraph 8 of the new schedule enables the chief inspector and the National Assembly for Wales to ask for assistance from local authorities. In turn, authorities are required to provide the assistance requested where reasonable to do so. That is an important provision.
  The Government's amendment, Amendment No. 134B, enables regulations to be laid in support of the general duty set out in new Section 79 concerning the provision of training, advice and guidance by local authorities. As drafted, new Section 79 would require each individual authority to determine how it might fulfil this function. That could lead to 150 different approaches across the country and precisely the kind of inconsistency we are seeking to do away with. Taking a regulation-making power would enable the Government to develop a more strategic approach, guided from the centre. For example, the regulations could set out the involvement of and interaction with those same partnerships which we in this House believe have an important role to play; namely, the early years development and childcare partnerships which draw up and agree early years development and childcare plans in each local authority area and which play a key role in the local delivery of the overall national childcare strategy.
  Such an approach would allow for the proper allocation of the function between local authorities and early years development and childcare partnerships and ensure no unnecessary overlap and duplication locally. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that considered reply, and in particular his words about early years and childcare partnerships. I liked the language on consultation as far as it went: that it would not be appropriate to burden the early years development and childcare partnership with consultation in certain circumstances. I am sure that by and large they would be more than happy to be burdened. However, that is ministerial language.
  I understand the Minister's position as regards discretion for consultation being used on a case by case basis. However, I suggest that it would be preferable for the Minister, as agent for the Secretary of State, to set out the general circumstances in which he believes it would be right to consult. A more positive and specific provision at a later stage of the Bill would be helpful. The assurance that the Secretary of State will consult where appropriate is not good enough. Perhaps the Minister would consider a more concrete form of words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 129E:
  Page 34, line 2I, leave out ("members of the public") and insert ("any person").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It is a short amendment. It extends access to the regulatory authorities' register of childminders and day care providers to any person. This improves current drafting to put beyond doubt that individuals in organisations acting in an official capacity (for example, partners and staff in the partnerships referred to in the previous debate) as well as members of the public (for example, parents wishing to secure childminding or day care services), will have access to the register. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, I understand what the Government are getting at. However, I should have thought that the expression "inspection by the public" has entered into the minds of the body politic over the decades and that one does not need to give an extended meaning to the word "person", as the Minister sought to do by referring to partnerships, bodies, and so on. If one simply says that the register is open to inspection by the public, everyone knows what that means.
  It would be easier—I am sorry that I did not think of it myself—simply to take out the words "members o' and then the matter would be clear. Everyone would understand what the provision meant.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comment. However, we believe that the minor amendment we propose is probably the best way of ensuring that organisations in an official capacity are covered by the clause.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 37, line 36, after ("training") insert (", including disability equality training,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving the amendment, perhaps I may crave your Lordships' indulgence and assume once again for one moment the role of a rogue and vagabond in apologising to the House for my unavoidable absence for the second half of the performance last Thursday, after the dinner interval. I thank my noble friend Lord Laming for assuming my part at such short notice and proving to be such a splendid understudy. I must commend the stage management skills of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—unfortunately he is not in his place—in prompting those taking part that Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 had made a somewhat late entrance. Last, but not least, I am delighted by the warm-hearted response of the audience in the shape of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. At the end of a curtain speech, I suppose I should say, "Goodnight and God bless us", and leave the Chamber. However, I assume that I must now move Amendment No. 130.
  Families with a child with severe learning disabilities or complex health needs often find it extremely difficult to obtain reliable professional and affordable childcare.
  Childminders, of whom we have been talking a great deal this evening, are often reluctant to offer care to disabled children unless they have already had experience of so doing. This has wider ramifications for the social inclusion of disabled children, and indeed may impact on the ability of parents to go out to work. Offering disability equality training to childminders, as indeed to all social care workers, will go a long way to prevent the social barriers which derive from ignorance.
  The activities covered seem to be within the ambit of the Disability Discrimination Act, which of course itself argues for disability equality training. Therefore, can the Minister assure us that such training will take place? I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, with his renowned expertise in this field, is right to be concerned that provision for the special needs of disabled children and children with learning disabilities is not overlooked.
  It is, of course, only proper that those responsible for the welfare and development of disabled children receive adequate training and operate within the appropriate guidelines and to the relevant standards.
  It is already the case that all early years providers receiving funding for early education must have regard to the code of practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Need. The noble Lord will welcome the fact that that Code of Practice is currently being revised to include more detailed guidance.
  As the noble Lord will be aware, we intend to implement a new framework of national standards for day care providers and childminders. Work on the

  1041
  detail of these new standards is ongoing, and, naturally, there will be full consultation with the sector before the standards are developed fully. However, I can assure the noble Lord that disability and special needs will be covered in the new standards, which will be underpinned by regulation and guidance.
  If, as we intend. providers and their staff are to meet these new requirements, they must, where necessary, have access to the proper training. As drafted, the relevant provision in this part of the Bill enables Ofsted to secure such training. Furthermore, in October we implemented further rights under the Disability Discrimination Act, which cover services to the public, including day care and childminding services. In December, following recommendations from the Disability Rights Task Force, the Secretary of State announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to tackle disability discrimination in education, including that for under-fives.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me, through his amendment, the opportunity to explain how it is envisaged that the new regulatory system and standards will operate in respect of disabled children and children with learning difficulties. I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have attempted to offer concerning the Government's action more widely in this area, he will at least have been reassured on the point that we are discussing now.
  Lord Rix: I warmly welcome the assurances that the Minister has given us, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.15 p.m.
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 131:
  Page 38, line 27, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Chief Inspector shall secure that registered inspectors receive appropriate training.").
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134.
  If I have an overriding concern over Part V, it must be my concern about the inspection of childminding and day care. The first and main point that I should like to emphasise is that any national system should be operated by staff who are trained to understand the full range of issues in education and childcare. They must understand the techniques of inspection and be familiar with a diversity of settings. The training of such staff is a task that is integral to these aims. If early learning is to be long lasting, a child's intellectual development must be nurtured on an equal basis with his or her emotional development. The training of registered inspectors must reflect both of those aspects.
  Registration and inspection staff are worried about their jobs. The DfEE has let it be understood that they are expected to transfer to the new branch of Ofsted, but how, and on what basis? I am aware, of course, of the TUPE arrangements, but local authorities need all the information possible to help them in planning for
  1042
  this transition and for the necessary changes, including the training of staff with qualifications that will be recognised by Ofsted.
  I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on these issues, which are not clear from my reading of new Section 79N, within Clause 68. New Section 79P(3), again in Clause 68, allows for the subcontracting of inspections. Have the Government considered giving the voluntary sector a role in such inspections? Does the Minister envisage the possibility of such organisations—provided, of course, that they are competent—registering as inspection bodies? Generally, on the issue of subcontracting, can the noble Lord confirm the paramount importance of ensuring the maintenance of high standards, whoever conducts the inspection?
  Speaking on an earlier set of amendments regarding the inspection of fostering and adoption agencies, I argued that the names of children and of adoptive and foster parents should be kept confidential in any inspection report and that they should not be publicly disclosed. I believe strongly that the same safeguards are needed for childminding as for the inspection of fostering and adoption arrangements.
  On a related point, the privacy of childminders should not be invaded more than is strictly necessary. Entry into a child's home is entry into a private domestic household, and ideally the minder as well as the inspector should be safeguarded by being accompanied by an officer of the arranging agency. We should remember that this is an activity that must be conducted with great sensitivity.
  With that thought in mind, let me express some concern over the drafting of new Section 79R(3). I was going to say that I hoped that the Minister would be minded to take away this part of the Bill and have a thorough look at it. Happily, the Government have already done that. But, without having had the benefit of hearing the Minister's remarks, I worry about the word "inspect", which it is proposed will replace "examine". I hope that the Minister will explain exactly what the significance of that word is.
  Looking further down the subsection—and here I re-emphasise a point I made a moment ago—I question whether inspectors should interview a childminder without anyone else being present in the room.
  The Government's proposal to inspect childminders will cost a considerable sum of money. The number of childminders is falling, I understand, and the proposal to create a national inspectorate may result in a further fall. I do not know how many recent scandals arid disasters there have been in this field, but in looking at the issues as they will impact on local authorities, perhaps I may make a plea to the Government that the money transferred from local authorities to Ofsted t o accompany the transfer of functions will be no more than can be fully justified. Local authorities will still retain important functions in providing information, training and advice on childminding and day care.

  1043
  With the revenue support grant already under pressure to meet the teachers' pay award, funding must be adequate. I beg to move.
  Baroness Barker: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 134ZA. We recently discussed the inspection of care homes. Here we are again trying to make that most difficult of judgments as to what constitutes inspections that will be effective without being too onerous.
  The noble Earl, Lord Howe, in relation to his amendments, talked about the use of the word "examine" as opposed to "inspect". I want to argue the contrary case on this amendment. Those of us who work in the field of social services, like those who work in other fields, have a language that is all our own. People gradually become fluent in speaking "social services", and words have particular meanings to us.
  The word "examine" in this context carries with it a connotation of physical or medical examination. Therefore, we believe that its use is inappropriate in charging inspectors to go into any premises and carry out what could be a detailed physical examination of a young person. Our amendment has the same intention as that tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but from a different starting point. We believe that the word "examine" is inappropriate and we want to replace it with the word "inspect".
  Lord Bach: In responding to Amendment No. 131, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 132,133 and 134ZA and to the Government's Amendment No. 134A. Taken together, they address a number of important issues relating to inspection.
  Amendment No. 131 ensures that the chief inspector provides proper training for his inspectors before they are expected to carry out their duties as regulators. That is a sensible requirement. It would not be appropriate for untrained, inexperienced inspectors to carry out this important and often sensitive role.
  However, provision for the training of inspectors is already included in Part V of the Bill. New Section 79N(3) on page 28 applies paragraph 11 of Schedule 26 to the School Standards and Framework Act to the register of childcare inspectors in the same way as it currently applies to the register of nursery education inspectors. Paragraph 11 requires registered nursery inspectors to have completed a course of training to the satisfaction of the chief inspector before being permitted to conduct an inspection. As this condition will also be required of the new cadre of inspectors, I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Earl that the objective of his amendment has been achieved.
  I turn to Amendment No. 132. I recognise that there may he concerns in some quarters about who might be contracted to carry out Ofsted's inspections. It might be helpful if I make clear that the actual effect of Amendment No. 132 is to prevent the contracting out of the organisation of inspections, not the inspection itself. This is a useful power as it may prove
  1044
  administratively more efficient, particularly in the longer term, for Ofsted to contract out the administrative function to allow it to concentrate on its key regulatory function. Indeed, Ofsted already successfully exercises a similar power in relation to the administration of the nursery education grant inspections and has found such flexibility helpful and would welcome its replication here.
  However, it is important to stress—and I do so—that the Government are concerned to ensure that inspections of both nursery education and childcare are carried out by appropriately qualified persons and the training to which I referred earlier is integral to that. That is why we are introducing new requirements on Ofsted, first, to register early years childcare inspectors and, secondly, to ensure that registered inspectors carry out inspections.
  In case there are further concerns about the contracting-out powers, we expect that in the majority of cases the inspectors currently employed by local authorities will carry out those duties and—in response to the noble Earl—to a high standard indeed. However, over time that might change as others such as nursery education inspectors take an interest in the work, which we should welcome. It will remain the case that whoever is charged with carrying out the inspection, he or she will be a registered inspector of a suitably high calibre to fulfil the role. We believe that someone from the voluntary sector could inspect, but only if suitably qualified. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments which we shall take away and consider further. Furthermore, there will be transitional arrangements for the transfer of staff, a matter to which we shall no doubt return.
  Having completed the inspection process, the regulating authority undertakes to make a full report. It is with regard to the detail of those reporting arrangements that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tabled Amendment No. 133. We have some sympathy with the general thrust of that amendment and I welcome the opportunity to clarify our intentions.
  It is important to ensure that certain sensitive information, including in some cases names and addresses, is not placed in the public domain. That will be particularly so when the publication of such information might in some cases place a child's well-being in doubt.
  However, our approach is slightly different from that of the noble Earl. The provision in subsection (2) of new Section 79Q already enables Ofsted to publish reports on providers but to withhold information from the report where appropriate to do so. That might apply, for example, when publishing an inspection report on a childminder and, for child protection reasons, it is considered appropriate not to reveal the provider's identity by publishing his or her name and address. In addition, your Lordships should also be aware that it is routine protocol for Ofsted when completing a report to check matters of factual accuracy with the provider before publication.

  1045
  We do not believe that that will be necessary, as this amendment seeks to achieve, in order to prevent the publication of names and addresses in every instance. An important part of these reforms is that parents are given access to more, not less, information about the availability and quality of the provision of childcare in their locality. In this context, the Ofsted reports will be rendered meaningless if parents, having identified potentially suitable provision in their area via the register established in new Section 79F(5), cannot assess the quality of its provisions. That is why we consider it proper that there should be discretion in this area, recognising, of course, that a sensible balance must be achieved between protecting children and the provision of information to parents.
  Inspection powers and the records which follow from them are the subject matter of Amendment No. 134 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It provides an opportunity to explain clearly that this element of the Bill basically carries forward an existing and very important inspection power set out in the Children Act 1989. In brief, this section of the Bill, unamended, sets out what an inspector may do or have regard to upon entering a provider's premises to undertake a routine inspection to report on the welfare and development of children. In addition, it clarifies what the inspector may do, or have regard to on other occasions; for example, on pre- and post-registration checks or unannounced inspections.
  As drafted, Amendment No. 134 would undermine this fundamental aspect of the inspection process, removing existing clarity as to the right to interview the care provider and/Dr give regard to the premises, the relevant records or documentation or the children being cared for.
  Given the clear implications for child protection and safety, the Government are concerned for the need to be more specific in this regard than the general power of entry which would result from the amendment. As drafted, the amendment would lay the power wide open to interpretation in relation to routine inspections. Furthermore, the amendment would reduce existing and helpful legal clarity regarding rights of entry to premises for purposes other than the prescribed formal inspection.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raises a more specific concern in Amendment No. 134ZA, which relates specifically to the children being cared for. Clearly, inspection of children is a particularly important aspect of the current inspection process to ensure both child welfare and child protection, which again should be carried forward into future arrangements. However, where concerns stem from the application of those various powers, I hope that the Committee will be reassured that the Government are of course determined that all powers are appropriately exercised.
  But surely that is a matter not for primary legislation but for regulations and standards? I have said before that the Committee knows that the Bill will for the first time introduce national guidance and standards, which we intend to develop in consultation
  1046
  with the relevant bodies. Those national arrangements will govern the whole inspection exercise and will ensure that the powers are effectively discharged and not abused.
  Having said that, the Government have some concerns similar to those expressed by the noble Baroness. They are related to the detailed wording of the draft Bill which introduces into the regulation process the word "examine", which we believe—here I am attempting to answer the noble Earl, Lord Howe— is an unhelpful and unintended "clinical/medical" term. Following helpful representations from both providers and regulators in this area and from the NSPCC, we have tabled an important amendment in the name of my noble friend: Amendment No. 134A, which seeks to remove the word "examine" and put back the original word, "inspect", as used in Part X of the Children Act 1989. We hope that by addressing that point with a government amendment, we may reassure the Committee on other related concerns discussed today.
  I hope that I have said enough to encourage the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to withdraw his amendment.
  7.30 p.m.
  Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for the full reply that he gave to all my amendments. I am particularly grateful to him on Amendment No. 131 for pointing me in the direction of paragraph 11 of Schedule 26 to the School Standards and Framework Act, which I believe settles the matter, together with his explanatory remarks. The intention of Amendment No. 132 was purely to probe the Government. I realise that its effect would be to prevent contracting out, which was not in the least my intention. I have every sympathy with the aim of contracting out. I am grateful for the consideration that the Minister said he would give to the points I made about the possible role of the voluntary sector.
  In respect of my Amendment No. 132 which deals with the confidentiality of names, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and consider the matter further between now and Report stage. Finally, I thank him for his remarks in response to my Amendment No. 134, which was again intended purely as a probing amendment. He successfully answered the questions that I raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments No. 132 to 134ZA not moved.]
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 134A:
  Page 39, line 33, leave out ("examine") and insert ("inspect").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 134B:
  Page 40, line 11, after ("shall') insert (", in accordance with regulations,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 68 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall not detain the Committee long against this clause, but I should like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that a number of substantial anxieties have been expressed about the way in which the new power has been drawn up, the body to which the registration and inspection has been entrusted and some of the detail about the powers to be given. In the course of his replies, the Minister has given us what I can only describe as some very bland assurances. One is dealing with the matter, as it were, at third hand. The Minister is here to say what he believes the Government will do. We have what is in the Bill as to what that means; then there is the question of the regulations which will follow; and, perhaps most important of all, the actual operation of the registration and inspection as it will be carried out by the people on the ground.
  I have a fear that we shall find ourselves with some rather heavy-handed detailed inspections and regulation in an area which, on the whole—although of course there are variations across the country—in the case of well-run local authorities, has actually run fairly satisfactorily. As a result, large numbers of people are prepared to offer child-minding and day care services and, as the Minister himself properly said, that is of great value in present day society when so many more women go out to work.
  I simply ask the Minister to take account of the anxieties that have been expressed; and to look seriously at some of the points raised—he has indicated for some of them that he is not disposed to change his mind, although he will listen—because I believe that we risk setting up something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Yes, there should be national standards—we agree on that. But I seriously wonder whether we are justified in setting up a whole new national bureaucracy to run them. I have a horrid feeling that, as it unfolds over the years ahead, one will find a rising tide of protest and a falling number of childminders and day care providers. That would be in no one's interest.
  Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I am sorry if my remarks seemed to him to be bland; I am sure that, when he was a senior Secretary of State, his remarks at any stage of any Bill for which he was responsible were not bland. I take seriously the comments and discussion that we have had in the Committee today at the proper stage of the Bill. We do not believe that the consequences of passing the Bill into legislation will be as the noble Lord predicts. However, we have further thinking to do; we shall no doubt return to the House on Report on those matters; and the noble Lord may rest assured that the remarks and comments made from all Benches—some supportive, some not so supportive—on this important part of this important Bill will be taken into careful consideration.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]
  7.39 p.m.
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  I believe that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if, in speaking to this Bill, I speak also to the identical Bill which relates to the Medway Council. Together, these two Bills seek to alleviate the problem of burglary and the disposal of stolen goods over the whole geographical area of Kent covered by the Kent Police.
  The Bills have the support of all political parties in the two councils. Wide consultation among organisations in Kent have shown that they are supported strongly by the general public, who are deeply concerned by the losses which they suffer when their homes are burgled. I declare an interest in this matter—a common interest, I am afraid, with many of your Lordships—as a personal victim of burglary in my own home in Kent. I declare an interest also as chairman of the Leeds Castle Foundation, where we have had bitter experience of the theft of valuable and historic items, which later turn up in the second-hand market.
  To give some indication of the scale of the problem, over 1997–98 it is estimated that goods worth £105 million were stolen in Kent, with a recovery rate of only 25 per cent. The Home Office has given support of £350,000 to a project in the Medway towns called "Radium". That was recently launched officially by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and is designed to tackle the fact revealed by Home Office research and by police intelligence that a large proportion of stolen property passes through unregulated second-hand dealers.
  The legislation will not solve the problem, but I believe that it will make possible a more effective partnership between the police and the consumer protection work of trading standards officers. The provisions of the two Bills go a good deal beyond antiques, which I believe may be the focus of a large part of our debate. However, they will help to tackle, for example, the second-hand car abuse of fiddling the mileage reading of odometers—a fraud which provides profits of many millions of pounds for unscrupulous car dealers. The legislation will deal also with a new development called "squat trading", where rogue traders illegally enter vacant high street premises for what amount to hit-and-run sales.

  1049
  The main provisions of the Bill are simple. They require registration, which will be free, of businesses which deal in second-hand goods. There is a requirement to keep a record of purchases and addresses, and of the sale of an article worth over £100. The penalties for failure to observe those provisions are set out in the Bills as a range of fines.
  The Bills have been before the public in Kent for a long time—indeed, since November 1998. As I said, they have been the subject of wide consultations, including discussions with LAPADA, the national antiques organisation. Those have resulted in a whole series of exemptions being negotiated: for occasional sales by auctioneers; for regular private markets of traders; and for dealers outside Kent who come in either to sell or to buy. There is a total exemption for books, and an amendment to protect the collectors of antiques who must disclose the location of their collections. Those amendments show that the councils listened to the concerns raised with them by various trade interests and took positive steps to address the concerns. As a result, there were no Petitions outstanding that required a Committee stage in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I am bound to say that I am a little puzzled that at this 11th hour the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, should table his amendments, which, if carried, will kill these useful Bills.
  Through the good offices of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the president of'LAPADA—a national body of standing in the antiques field—some of us had the opportunity last week to hear and study its concerns and those of some antique dealers within Kent. I am bound to say that I recognise the strength of feeling behind those concerns. LAPADA expresses support for the motives behind the Bills but believes that the only approach should be through national legislation. It appears to argue that it is wrong in principle to make what it calls "local criminal law". Local by-laws and private Acts lie at the very heart of the whole local government system. I may do something which is perfectly all right in my native Dundee but it may attract a fine if I try it in my adopted county of Kent. In any case, there is no practical prospect of national legislation in this field. I believe that LAPADA's point of view in the matter is a typical example of the ideal being the enemy of the good. That is no more than to argue that if you cannot do something worth while everywhere, you should not be allowed to do it anywhere.
  There are, in fact, a number of local authorities which have sought and operate similar powers to those now being sought by Kent County Council and by Medway Council. I shall not take up your Lordships' time in the brief period available by reciting all of them. However, there is a list of eight local authorities with similar powers.]" asked the Kent Police to contact all those councils. Every one of them has confirmed that it finds the legislation useful and that the councils work with the local police forces to enforce it.
  The second objection is that the Bills' requirements to keep simple records will impose an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on small businesses. Certainly, it will be a bureaucratic burden; I do not deny that. But
  1050
  some bureaucracy is inevitable as the price of preventing the minority of wrongdoers from exploiting the law-abiding majority. Examples of social security benefit fraud and of income tax evasion readily come to mind. Neither of those can be dealt with without some degree of bureaucratic regulation. For the bona fide antique dealer, this registration should be a price worth paying for deterring the burglars from bringing discredit on decent businesses which deal in second-hand goods. They should be reassured that the police and trading standards officers in Kent have neither the desire nor, indeed, the manpower to impose a heavy-handed and intrusive regime of regulation. They plan a selective, targeted, intelligence-based campaign made more effective by pooling the police's intelligence sources with information from the registration records.
  Finally, the noble Viscount's amendments seem to me to raise issues of significant parliamentary principle. LAPADA and the local antique dealers have raised objections which certainly deserve serious consideration. There were discussions between the councils and LAPADA during the consultation period on the Bills and, indeed, I believe that a number of amendments were made to meet their wishes. Personally, I believe that it is a great pity that if LAPADA and the antique dealers in Kent felt as strongly as they now say they do, they should not have put in their Petitions at the appropriate period and therefore enabled a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to deal with the matter in the kind of detail which it deserves and which, I believe, is impossible in this kind of abbreviated debate during the dinner hour. For whatever reason, that was not done. They will, or should, have a further opportunity to do so when the Bill passes to the other place, as it ought to do.
  I say seriously to the noble Viscount that surely it would be a great error of judgment and quite wrong if this House, in a sparsely attended debate during the dinner hour, were to prevent the elected Chamber, including the elected Members for Kent, dealing with proposals from the Kent local authorities which are designed to protect householders from burglaries arid loss of precious possessions. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Thomson of Monyieth.)
  Viscount Astorrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months".
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for whom I have great respect, said that this House should send these Bills to another place. I believe very firmly that one of the most important roles of this House is to make sure that we do not send bad Bills to another place. I shall seek to explain that and persuade your Lordships that that is the case this evening.

  1051
  I believe that these Bills are well-intentioned but they are wrong. The primary reason for that is that they have a national implication. It is not merely a local government Bill affecting a small area. I have no interest to declare. I am not an antiques dealer. I admit that I occasionally pay the bill when my wife buys something from an antique shop but that is as far as it goes. I have no knowledge about why there has been no Petition or anything like that.
  It is worth looking at the details of the Bill. It requires anyone who wishes to deal in second-hand goods in Kent to register himself and his premises with the county council. Once registered, the dealer may trade but he must keep a record of the names and addresses of any person from whom the articles are acquired. He must keep a record of the articles themselves, descriptions, the names and addresses of anyone to whom he sells an article valued at over £100 and the date of all transactions. On the face of it, that is perfectly reasonable. The records must be kept in a form prescribed by the county council and must be produced to a constable or authorised officer of the council on demand. There are exemptions which include registered charities, scrap dealers and pawn brokers.
  But if one looks at Part III, one sees that it deals not only with occasional sales and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, squat trading but also with auctions, fairs and car boot sales. Anybody wishing to engage in those activities must first give notice to the county council of his intention to do so. The notice must include the time and date of the event, the premises to be used, the type of goods to be sold, the names and addresses of all the organisers and an estimate of the numbers attending. In relation to a car boot sale, I should think it is extremely difficult to know all the types of goods which are to be sold, and, indeed, it must be difficult to estimate the likely numbers in attendance. If this Bill is passed, there will be no car boot sales in Kent. They will all be held in a field a mile across the border in East Sussex.
  At any occasional sale, the organiser must make a record of the names and addresses of all those selling the goods, whether each article is new or second-hand and, indeed, the registration numbers of all the vehicles used to transport goods to the sale. That is a difficult task.
  But there are other important concerns. Part IV grants powers of entry to registered premises by authorised officers of the council or the police in order to inspect, take away and copy records. Powers of entry are granted also to any premises, whether registered or not, in order to inspect records or to serve notice relating to an occasional sale or squat trade.
  Although this provision was originally designed to clamp down on dishonesty in the second-hand car market and car boot sales, the Bill casts its net much more widely. More notably, it captures within its scope antique shops, antique fairs, antique auctions, country house sales and village fetes.
  1052
  The Bill as it stands would mean that dealers in antiques registered in Kent must comply with the provisions of the Bill wherever they do business. Dealers from outside the county doing business in Kent must comply with the provisions, including the registration requirements. Dealers from outside the county include dealers from abroad. A dealer is apparently anyone carrying out just one single trade in a year. There is confusion in that regard. That seems to be the case on my reading of the Bill but I cannot believe that the Bill means to say that.
  Any country house sale conducted in Kent falls within the scope of Part III but those sales conducted by outside auctioneers are excluded. Again, that is another anomaly.
  The powers of entry in Part IV are not dependent on a warrant and extend to premises outside Kent. As currently drafted, the Bill grants summary powers of entry to council officials and the police to enter private dwellings as well as business premises.
  The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, says that there has been consultation and that is true. But, as I understand it, the outcome of that consultation is that there has been no agreement. But this Bill has important implications. No compliance cost assessment has been carried out. Therefore, we do not know what will be the cost to the trade nor to the police when they try to enforce this measure. Is there to be a cost of registration? What will be the costs to the council? Are we imposing burdens on the police? Who is to pay for this? That is not clear and perhaps the Minister will address that point.
  The Bill fails an important test of principle; that is, that there should be national consistency in criminal law. Legislation which creates criminal offences arising from every-day commercial transactions should apply nationally throughout the country and not, as in this case, just to one county.
  This Bill would impose regulation and burdens on small businesses. It would include a large amount of red tape, something of which the Government are not in favour. Because no regulatory impact assessment has been carried out, we have no estimate of the enforcement costs. There has been no cost benefit analysis. In many instances, it is difficult to see how the police can enforce many of the Bill's provisions when so much business is carried on around the country.
  As I said, there are clear issues which have not been addressed; for example, civil liberties issues with regard to the power of entry into domestic and private premises.
  The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that the problem of crime in Kent is serious and he quoted the figures. I totally agree with him about that. If one extrapolates those figures to other counties, one reaches the clear view that any legislation should be national legislation. The matter should not be left to individual authorities.
  There are more than 200 authorities which may wish to bring forward their own Bills and they will all be slightly different. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that, including North Yorkshire, there

  1053
  are six local authorities which have brought forward similar legislation. That legislation varies dramatically. It is not the same. In some cases it is quite simple; in others, it does not work. It is different. If this Bill addresses a serious problem, it is up to the Government to address it. One cannot have piecemeal law-making in this country. It would bring the law into disrepute. I believe that that is the most important message that we wish to convey. The case has not been made for these two Bills. They are of national importance and should be dealt with nationally. In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will support the amendment which I have tabled this evening. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months".—(Viscount Astor.)
  7.58 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bass am of Brighton): My Lords, I had not originally intended to speak at this early stage in the debate but it may help to clarify matters if I explain the Government's point of view.
  I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. In doing so, I shall not depart from the convention that governments take a neutral stance on Private Bills. There are no exceptional grounds in relation to this Bill for me to do otherwise, despite the controversy which, at this late stage, it appears to be generating.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, explained, the Bill is principally intended, through tighter regulation, to help tackle some of the crime-related problems, especially as regards circulation of stolen goods, which have arisen in Kent from various forms of second-hand trading.
  The House also knows that an identical Bill is to be brought before us by Medway Council, which is a unitary authority. To have two Bills is the only way to ensure that the whole county is covered. The fact that both Bills are strongly supported by Kent County Constabulary will, I am sure, be a point in their favour as far as this House is concerned.
  Your Lordships will also wish to keep in mind that similar private legislation has been passed for other parts of the country as diverse as North Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Worcester. There is no shortage of precedents.
  The Government initially had concerns about some of the provisions in the first draft of the Bill. Levels of proposed penalties seemed too high and proposed powers of entry and seizure were in our view too widely drawn. I am happy to report, however, that these concerns were resolved by consultation and in discussion with the Bill's sponsors prior to its consideration in Committee. The Bill now before the House reflects what has been agreed between all concerned.
  The Government have no objection in principle to the Bill. Last November we published our crime reduction strategy. At the heart of the strategy are the
  1054
  new steps we will be taking to ensure that every local crime and disorder reduction partnership and police force is performing to its maximum potential. There are now 375 such partnerships in England and Wales, in which police, local authorities and other agencies work together to identify and combat crime in their areas. The way the local authorities and police in Kent are working together to promote this Bill accords very closely with that approach, which I believe is in itself worthy of this House's commendation.
  I should like to mention at this point that the Government are currently funding, out of the £400 million we have made available for the crime reduction programme, two projects aimed at limiting the market for stolen goods. One is in Greater Manchester, and the other, "Project Radium" is, appropriately enough for this debate, in the Medway area of Kent to which I referred earlier. The latter project much impressed my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and, I might add, myself when I visited the project last summer. So your Lordships will see how this Bill ties in with other efforts being directed towards the same ends.
  I have been aware of the concerns expressed by representatives of some of the legitimate traders who would be affected by the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has raised this with the Government specifically on behalf of art and antique dealers. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, echoed those concerns this evening. The concerns focus on the additional regulatory burden to be placed upon small businesses, the inconsistencies that arise across the country in having legislation applying in some areas and not others, and possible enforcement difficulties.
  The inconsistency point cannot be denied. That is inevitably the consequence—perhaps one might even say the beauty—of having local legislation. Where there is no national legislation to deal with a particular problem, as is the case here—and there are no government plans for such legislation—I am sure your Lordships would not wish to deny any local authority its own legislation simply because others do not have it.
  The Government are firmly committed to not adding unnecessarily to the regulatory burden on small businesses, and I understand the anxieties that have been voiced on this aspect of the matter. It is clear that a careful and balanced judgment is needed in each situation as to whether additional regulation can be justified. It is for your Lordships to form that judgment on this Bill in the light of the arguments put forward by its sponsors and their opponents.
  It is equally for the Bill's sponsors, if necessary, to persuade Parliament that the proposed new laws are enforceable. I feel, though, bound to say—without, I hope, compromising my neutrality on the matter—that I find it very hard to believe that a measure prepared and promoted jointly by the local authority and the police could not be effectively enforced.
  As I said at the beginning, it is not for the Government to take sides. However, I remind the House that the Bill is due to proceed to its next stage in

  1055
  another place, where anyone opposed to it can petition against it if they so wish, and where any such petition would be fully considered. Your Lordships may feel it would be better for objections to be properly looked at and debated there, rather than take what I believe would be the most unusual step of refusing to let the Bill go beyond this Third Reading. Whatever noble Lords decide, I hope that this short contribution setting out the Government's view will help them in their careful deliberations on the Bill this evening.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and oppose the amendment. I spent 35 years as a police officer and I know the value of such regulation. Similar provisions were passed in relation to scrap metal dealers. The Gaming Act controls gaming clubs. Licensees are regulated in the same way. The provisions would be valuable.
  The Chief Constable of Kent is totally supportive of the Bill. He is chairman of the ACPO Crime Committee, so, when it comes to crime, he knows what he is talking about. He is one of the top chief constables and has shown a marked reduction in crime. Crime is an expensive business. The last estimate from the insurers' association indicates that £31 billion-worth of goods are stolen each year.
  Any measure that can prevent crime and detect offenders must be valuable. I do not believe it matters if it is confined to one area. If the people enforcing it believe it would be well worth while, this House has a duty to support it. Any crime reduction measure is valuable, not just to the police but to the community concerned. Clearly, if there are no disposal points for stolen goods, it is more difficult to sell the goods. There is also a deterrent effect if thieves are fully aware of the fact that there may be difficulty in selling the goods. The point made about being able to give false names and addresses is perfectly valid. However, if this Bill has any effect at all in deterring crime, we have a duty to support it. I believe that the Bill should continue its passage.
  Lord Luke: My Lords, first I declare an interest as a dealer in second-hand goods. I buy and sell watercolours and have done so in Kent, so I would definitely be caught by the new regulations.
  I believe it is unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, to compare antique dealers to scrap metal dealers. I take exception to that. In this business there are a great number of small traders. There are the smart people in Tunbridge Wells, Kent and the smart people in London, but the whole business is based on small people going backwards and forwards, saying, "Can I buy or sell your picture for you?" and so forth. Much of the business is conducted as a second business, not as a first business. The amount of bureaucracy which will be necessary to make this provision work is far more than is justified by the gains that will be made.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said that the police are keen to have this measure and that they will be able to enforce it. I very much doubt whether the
  1056
  police will have time to do so. These days so much police time is taken up with non-criminal work that they often take hours to turn up after a burglary. If they were busily trying to enforce these new regulations, given all the myriads of small dealers there are, I do not believe they would be able to cope.
  The noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Monifieth, mentioned the fact that books will be exempt. There are extremely valuable books available. If this is such a good idea, I cannot see why books should be exempt. That is extraordinary. As regards the provision applying only in Kent, Manchester, North Yorkshire and wherever else, dealers do not respect county boundaries; they move around all over the place. I find it extraordinary, if, as the Minister stated, the Government think this is such a good idea, that they do not come forward with a national scheme, properly worked out, which will then cover the whole country and perhaps make some difference to the disposal of stolen goods.
  I cannot see that this scheme, relating only to Kent, can have any good, viable result. It will create a great deal of extra legislation. It will be oppressive to the smaller trader and I support the amendment of my noble friend all the way down the line.
  Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I too begin by declaring an interest. My home is in the county of Kent. I have an interest in doing whatever I can to contribute to the reduction in the amount of stolen property which is never recovered. As we have already heard today, only around 25 per cent of stolen property in Kent is recovered, in spite of the attention of an extremely efficient police force under a Chief Constable of whose distinction we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate.
  I also have a specific interest in hoping that such antiques, cars or other desirables as I may possess remain in my possession and are not stolen. In the course of 23 years as the MP for a constituency already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Luke, my constituents, if they agreed with me in nothing else, passionately shared that concern.
  We therefore have the spectacle of the House tonight being invited to consider in all of one hour—the dinner hour at that—a substantial measure affecting law and order in an important way which has been one-and-a-half years in preparation by a major county council and which has the full support of the chief constable and the police committee. I invite the House of course to do the best it can in the short time available to consider the merits of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Astor. But it is quite impossible in this short time for us to begin to do anything like justice to the merits of the arguments. We heard arguments about incompatibility with liberty; about impracticability of enforcement and so forth. We cannot resolve those within the half hour left to us.
  It is worth reminding ourselves how this extraordinary situation came about. It is not that this Bill has somehow been spirited in without complying with the rules which this House requires for

  1057
  advertisement. I inquired of the Private Bill Office whether or not the rules had been complied with and, as one might expect, the answer was that they had.
  A procedure was open for objectors to petition, whereupon all these important discussions could have taken place with, if desired, witnesses being called before a Select Committee. That was not done. My noble friend Lord Astor—I do not say this disrespectfully—says rather loftily, "I have no knowledge as to why there was no petition". I am sure he is right, but that is not enough to dispose of the point. We have here a Bill which can, if it receives a Third Reading tonight, receive after a petition in the other place the examination which it could and evidently should have received here.
  One must deal with the principal point made; namely, that piecemeal legislation of this character is wrong. If so, that "wrongness" seems to have eluded Parliament over the past 10 years in a large number of instances. Similar, though not identical Bills, were promoted and passed in respect of South Yorkshire, the county of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Humberside, the county of Lancashire, Herefordshire City Council, Worcester City Council, North Yorkshire County Council and, most recently, the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I understand that that Bill passed its stages in this House and is now before the other place.
  I agree with the Minister that we must not allow the best to be the enemy of the good. Because there is no prospect of national legislation coming forward—one understands the pressures—is it to be said that Kent and those who live there are to be denied the advantage of provisions which the residents of a substantial part of the country received? I cannot see why it should be said that Kent should be singled out and dismissed.
  It is said that the police cannot engage in this sort of activity. It is strange that that argument eluded the Chief Constable of Kent, the police authority and an extremely properly cost-conscious county council that is certainly not in the habit of authorising, let alone instigating, expenditure which will be impractical.
  I venture to suggest that it is not enough merely to say that this is a well-intentioned but wrong Bill, as my noble friend Lord Astor said. Of course it is well intentioned and those intentions are shared by those who object. They made that clear. The Bill concerns the reduction of crime and the ease with which the police can get on top of the problem of stolen property. The promoters of the Bill are doing something about it. They do not seek to have it spirited through Parliament without examination; they would welcome it being properly examined. They have already shown that they are prepared to respond to a case made against it by a number of amendments which have been made in this House, although the Bill was unopposed. But they wish the Bill to pass and the people of Kent are entitled to that.
  I conclude by repeating a point already alluded to but about which I feel most strongly. I was tempted to say it would be frivolous but it would certainly be remarkable, and I believe bizarre, for a Bill of this
  1058
  seriousness to be dismissed at the conclusion of one hour's discussion. That would not sit easily, let alone happily, with the reputation of which this House is so jealous for the serious, mature and scrupulous consideration of legislative proposals brought before it. I hope that my noble friend, having had an eloquent say—to which he will no doubt add—will cap his performance by withdrawing this amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I found much with which to agree in what everybody said this evening and, to some extent, much with which to disagree.
  I join every speaker to date in saying that the expressed objects of the Bill are praiseworthy. I join my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew in saying that we owe a great deal of respect to the people and democratic structures of Kent and Medway, who have every right, as has every local council, to make the lives of their citizens as difficult and inconvenient as possible within the normal bounds we set on such things. It should be no part of our life in this House to interfere with that sort of arrangement, which is internal to a county council and with which the voters of that county can properly deal at their elections.
  I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, that we should pay close attention to what the police say about these matters. I do not go as far as he in saying that, if the police support something, we should give it our support. Even the Liberal Democrat Party would be a little more critical than that on most issues. I do not share the disparagement by my noble friend Lord Luke of scrap metal dealers—I believe most of them these days are called "modern art" dealers.
  But there are precedents for these Bills. I have read them. I have been through all the Bills which passed through this House. They are entirely acceptable local Bills. They are local in their concept, local in their effect and reasonable in their terms.
  In many aspects, this Bill goes much further than any existing legislation. It is not just a national Bill; it is an international Bill in its effects. It is positing the powers of the Kent Police operating world-wide. I find the idea of a Kent policeman or trading standards officer looking over the behaviour of the registered Kent antique dealer, or dealer in second-hand goods, wherever he may be in the world, to be extraordinary.
  There are a number of the Bill's aspects that concern me, many of them small but one great. I shall deal, first, with the small ones. I start with the matter of consultation. This may have been public; indeed, I believe it was subject to an advertisement in the Evening Standard, which I do not think is widely read in all parts of Kent. However, clearly it has not been discussed sufficiently with the main organisations representing dealers in second-hand goods. One or two of them have been involved and little exemptions have appeared in the Bill; for example, my noble friend Lord Astor mentioned books, which is extraordinary. Books are a valuable part of many people's possessions. I understand that they are to be exempted

  1059
  in order to avoid the Bill being opposed in this House. The reason why we have not had a proper procedure in this Chamber is that deals were done with those who had the funds and the will to oppose such procedures in this House. We have not been afforded the chance to look at the Bill properly because of actions taken by Kent County Council, among other things.
  Secondly, there has been very little exposure of the benefits of the Bill. It may be lack of talent on my part, but I have been unable to find anyone in the police force of North Yorkshire who is willing to say anything in great support of the past 10 years' experience at their end. It is a nice little piece of bureaucracy and is enforced keenly by the trading standards officers. However, as far as I can discover, it does not do much to prevent crime.
  The difficulty about the way this Bill is expressed is that it is in danger of turning you and me—that is, ordinary people who may have a little hobby collecting this or that—into criminals without our knowing about it. When we decide what should be a local law and what should be a national one, one of the most important things we must have regard to is whether people coming into the area can reasonably know what is criminal and what is not within that county. We set our traffic regulations in such a way that I know what the signs on the side of the road mean. I know what a thirty-mile-an-hour speed limit is because such limits are set nationally. But parking regulations, and in particular how you get a parking permit, and so on, are set locally because they concern local people. That is the way that the other Bills in this area have been drafted. They set out local regulations applying to people who have premises in the county or area concerned so that they properly know about them.
  For example, if you have a shop in Winchester or one in Lancashire, you are governed by the local regulations and when you make a trip to Kent you do not expect, as is the case with this Bill, to find that you are governed by the Kent or Medway regulations, which may be separate. Indeed, if the precedent of this particular type of Bill is followed, we may end up with 200 different sets of criminal legislation covering the country. It would be totally impossible for the ordinary person to know where he or she stands.
  I turn to my third point. It is the practice with Bills these days to say where they stand vis-à-vis the Human Rights Act. But there is nothing of that sort in this Bill, although it contains extensive powers of entry and criminal penalties that are quite interesting in the effect that they would have on the ordinary citizen. I believe that that is something which should be looked at in this Bill. Similarly, the consequences of the Data Protection Act are not covered, although the Bill requires record keeping in a quite extensive way, especially as regards purchase transactions by individuals. That will amount to a great dictionary for a thief if he happens to come across it; indeed, he might find information about interesting things around the county.
  1060
  There is no recognition in the Bill of e-commerce. It is a recently-enough drafted Bill so it ought to have contemplated such consequences. The forms of record which are to be kept are not set out in the Bill—this is different from any other Act—and can be set by the council at a later date. Many of these people will keep records for VAT purposes and that sort of record will do under any other legislation. They are keeping a record for VAT and that same record will do. However, under this Bill, the Kent County Council or the Medway Council can demand that a different sort of record be kept.
  There is a phrase in the Bill of what is required to be recorded; namely, a description "sufficient to identify" the articles. That is an innovation in this Bill. How do you come by a description sufficient to identify, say, a Penny Black or the exhaust of an old Austin 1100? They are asking the impossible. They are also asking the impossible at the other end of the scale when it comes to a house clearance. To comply with that particular wording, which is different from the wording in any other similar Act, you would have to record every single pin that you picked up in a House—or perhaps you would be allowed to say "a box of pins". But when you have paid £200 for the general contents of someone's house, it is ridiculous to have to spend two days on record keeping.
  In other Bills the definition of "dealer" is quite clearly confined to people who would ordinarily consider themselves to be dealers. If we take the Yorkshire Act, which goes furthest, you would find yourself having to register with North Yorkshire if you go to deal at the Harrogate antiques fair. But if you just turn up in Yorkshire to buy a few things from an antique shop, you are fine. However, under this Bill, if you make one or two transactions—for example, a couple of items bought from an antique shop—or if you are a dealer somewhere else in the country, or, indeed, anywhere else in the world, you will be caught by the provisions and will have to register. The whole business occurs in several places in the legislation; indeed, there can be a variation of the terms of this Act by local order which can apply to people outside the county who will only come across this jurisdiction occasionally. It is something which is fraught with danger for the ordinary citizen. For the record, I should also point out here that there is a typographical error at line 21 on page five.
  The great problem with this Bill is that it seeks to deal with a local problem in a way that has national and international effects. It would produce a chaotic and, indeed, comic effect if it were to come into practice. It would be like a combination of the Keystone Cops and "Passport to Pimlico". If an outsider coming into Kent is a dealer he must register; but how does he know that he must do so? If he is on holiday from France, how does he know who he must register with before he drops into an antique shop? He will not even know whether he must do so in Kent, in Medway or, indeed, in one of the other counties which may bring forward this sort of legislation in the future. But if he fails to register he is committing a criminal offence.

  1061
  Wherever a Kent dealer goes in the world and whenever he does a deal in second-hand goods, he has to read a form of wording to anyone with whom he is doing a deal to warn them of the consequences of failing to provide the correct name and address of whoever he is selling to or buying from. One can imagine a dealer trying this on in Australia and only guess at the reply he would get from the average Australian if he were to try to warn him that, if he did not give the correct name and address, the Kent police would be after him.
  If this Bill is to be a blueprint for future Acts, any dealer in second-hand goods who is at all widespread in his activities in the UK will have to register with every local authority, and there might be 200 of them if we follow this practice. He will have to display 200 notices of registration with each local authority. He will have to keep up to date with 200 sets of local rules, which are changed locally and not subject to national advertising or any form of national notification; in other words, things that can be changed just by local regulation. That would change the way he has to behave when he deals in a particular county. He will also face 200 sets of criminal penalties if he gets it wrong, and may well have to keep different forms of record for each county with which he is registered because those things can be changed locally and are not laid down in the Bill. That would mean that every transaction would have to be recorded a number of times. This is oppressive to the honest and it is very hard to see how it will be effective as regards the dishonest: it is costly, tedious and unenforceable. It just will not do as legislation.
  We have to live within the procedures of this House as we find them. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, I find it deeply unsatisfactory that we have not had a proper opportunity to debate this Bill. But we in this Chamber are not in the business of letting through deeply unsatisfactory legislation. I know that we do it sometimes; indeed, I am sad to say that we have done it in the past at my government's request. I deeply regret the handguns and the dangerous dogs legislation, which have harmed innocent people and done very little to deal with the guilty. I do not think that it is an honour to this House to let go flawed legislation just because the procedures of the House have not allowed us to debate it properly. We have a responsibility—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? This matter has been referred to on a number of occasions. I was prepared to give all the time that this issue required on a Friday. However, all of those interested in this subject said that they did not wish to discuss it on a Friday and that they preferred to discuss it during a dinner break.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not remember expressing any such reservation myself. 1 would have been quite happy to spend a long Friday on it but it is not obviously in my hands.
  1062
  I think that at the end of the day the honour and the position of this House depend on it taking care of the legislation that it lets go, of not being seen as a rubber-stamp, but rather as a critical and honest revising Chamber. On balance, when I look at the way this Bill has been drafted, I think that we owe it to ourselves to ask Kent County Council to think again.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Rees: My Lords, my only pretext for intervening, I hope briefly, in this important debate is that I once had the privilege of representing part of east Kent in the other place and had a house in east Kent. I suppose that I bought, if I did not sell, some of the articles that are covered by this Bill.
  I say in opening that I certainly applaud the objectives of the Bill. I do not seek to criticise the procedures that have been followed by the sponsors of both Bills in this case. It is difficult for us to say that Members of this House have been remiss in their duties. The petitions for the two Bills were deposited at the end of 1998. The Bills were introduced in this House and read a second time just under a year ago. No petition was deposited against the Medway Council Bill. However, a petition was deposited against the Kent County Council Bill but was withdrawn on 8th July 1999. The effect of that was of course that the Kent Bill became unopposed. A Home Office report was submitted on the two Bills and they were considered by the Unopposed Bill Committee. Amendments were made to both Bills at that stage.
  Therefore in form at any rate, if not totally in substance, I believe that the proper procedures were followed. As I say, I believe that the objectives of the Bill are entirely laudable. I agree that the detail and the practicalities are questionable. Some of my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Lucas, to whose speech I listened closely, drew particular attention to that. My noble friend Lord Astor set out attractively and accurately the criteria that ought to be applied to legislation of this kind. He drew attention to the matter of national consistency. I entirely sympathise with that point because if we do not have consistency in a field as important as this, those who want to operate in this field will experience difficulties and the kind of business likely to be covered by this Bill may be driven out of counties such as Kent into adjoining counties with possible unattractive economic consequences. I cannot see that they would be catastrophic but there may be unattractive economic consequences for people who wish to operate in Kent or in the Medway towns. That ought to be reflected upon.
  The Minister owes it to the House to explain whether serious consideration has been given to legislation in this field that is national in scope. It is too late at night to go into all the delicacies that may arise from devolution. I cannot for the moment recollect whether this kind of matter would be covered by the Scottish or Welsh devolution Bills. However, as I am now resident in Wales I shall have to become more acquainted with that matter if this provision becomes law. At any rate I believe that there is rather a strong

  1063
  case for considering—I am sure that the Minister or his officials will have considered this—whether there is not a case for some national rather than council-based legislation in this field. Having had a brief spell in government I appreciate that there is always the pretext that there is not the time or the resources to consider a Bill of this kind in this particular Parliament. However, I hope that I may press the Minister to comment on that before this debate is concluded.
  Various noble Lords have mentioned the regulatory burden. There is no estimate of the likely costs not only for the councils or the police forces who are involved in this matter but also of the likely transaction costs. Again, we owe it to ourselves and to the country to show that we have considered that aspect of the case. There is also the matter of the general regulatory burden. However, as other of my noble friends have touched on that matter, I do not think that I need comment further on it.
  As regards the question of enforceability, I am in no position to say whether these measures are practically enforceable to any reasonable degree. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—for whose views I have the warmest regard—said that the measure had been introduced in eight other council areas and they had found it useful. I hope that he will allow me to suggest that it is not so much a question of the utility to the council authorities, or even to the police authorities in those areas; we also have to consider the utility to those involved in the manner of business that we are discussing. There cannot be any presumption that they are somehow on the edges of the law and we can disregard the inconvenience of the practicalities as they affect them. I should like to hear a little more about this matter. During the procedures which have led this Bill to appear before this Chamber tonight, was that aspect of the matter considered at all carefully?
  There is also the question of civil liberties. As this matter has been discussed at length and with authority, I shall not discuss it further, but we must take that matter into account. The House will be relieved to hear that I say in conclusion that I approve of the objectives of the Bill and I have no particular criticism—indeed, in some senses I approve—of the course taken by the sponsors of this Bill. There is no question of it being forced through in an underhand way, but evidently the points were not taken up in the appropriate quarters at the appropriate time. I therefore cannot go along with my noble friend Lord Astor. I do not think that after a rather limited debate it would be right for us to kill off these Bills at this stage. Were the matter to be taken to a Division, I would vote that the Bills should be passed tonight, but on the clear understanding on the part of the sponsors of the Bills that ample time will be found—I know that that does not rest entirely with them—for a proper debate and investigation of these two Bills in another place. Subject to that reservation I am prepared to let the Bills go through tonight.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in what I hope will be a brief speech on one or two procedural matters, I must first of all apologise to your Lordships for being perhaps somewhat overdressed for an occasion of this kind. While no trouble is too great to take for the benefit of your Lordships, the reason I am dressed in this manner is that I am due to attend the dinner which is being given by Cross-Bench Peers to mark the retirement of the former Convenor, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
  I am sure that your Lordships have listened with considerable interest to the speeches which have been made both for and against the Third Reading of the two Bills. I am also sure that your Lordships will understand that it is not my responsibility to take part in any discussions on the merits of a Private Bill. However, as Motions have been tabled which, if carried, would have the practical effect of rejecting the Bills on Third Reading, your Lordships may find it helpful if I say something briefly to remind you, or perhaps to confirm in certain cases, some of the procedural implications of the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
  As your Lordships have heard, neither the Kent County Council Bill nor the Medway Council Bill was referred to a Select Committee. This was because the only petition presented against the Kent County Council Bill was withdrawn, as has been indicated already, and the Medway Council Bill was never opposed in your Lordships' House at all. Neither Bill therefore received the detailed scrutiny of its merits which takes place in Select Committee if a Private Bill is opposed. I can assure your Lordships that both Bills received the detailed technical scrutiny that your Lordships would expect. Both Bills were amended, as has also been indicated, mainly on technical points, by the Unopposed Bill Committees.
  Perhaps I should refer to one specific point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, during the debate. I confirm that private legislation is not covered by the requirement that there should be a statement by the Minister that the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act. That is true for both Houses.
  I should mention that it is unusual for Private Bills to be opposed at Third Reading. The last time a Private Bill was rejected at Third Reading in your Lordships' House was the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill in 1987. That Bill differed from the two present Bills in that it had been considered by a Select Committee, which had produced a special report on the Bill. If the House agrees to the Third Reading of the two Bills today—this has been mentioned by at least one noble Lord—they will of course pass to another place, where there will be a further opportunity for opponents of the Bills, or either of them, to petition against them and for the Bills to be considered by a Select Committee there.
  Your Lordships may consider that such a course would be more appropriate than the outright rejection of the Bills by this House, where they have not been considered by a Select Committee. Without

  1065
  mentioning the merits of the Bills, I would suggest that, on the procedural point I am making, that may be the appropriate course for your Lordships' House to adopt.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees sits down, can he say whether the Bill—should we pass it here tonight—can be amended in another place, as opposed to being totally rejected following petitions against it? That would seem to be the deciding factor in how we shall vote if the amendment goes to a Division.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I can confirm that it would be possible for amendments to be made. The procedures in another place are similar to procedures here. If a Select Committee were to be appointed on either of the Bills, there would be opportunities to consider amendments there. Similarly, if the re were to be an Unopposed Bill Committee in an other place, just as happened in this House, it would be possible for amendments to be brought forward there.
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I shall take one moment to reply to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount in the light of what has been said during this interesting debate. We are all grateful for the advice we received from the Minister, who spoke from his balanced position of neutrality. He conveyed some important information about the background to the Bill. Finally, we had some very clear advice from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
  I thought that the noble Viscount made two main points—both of them valid in their ways. One of his objections to the Bill was that there should be no "piecemeal law-making". With respect, it would put a stop to almost all local authority legislation if that concept were to be followed.
  The debate has shown a number of detailed points of real concern. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, recited a great many of them. They cannot be dealt with in a debate of this kind, but they can be dealt with by accepting the advice of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.I very much hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to follow that advice.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had an interesting short debate. Perhaps I may deal with a few of the points that have been made.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said that the police had no problem dealing with scrap metal dealers. I am sure that he is aware that they are covered by the 1964 Act—which is a national Act, as is the Gaming Act.
  It pains me greatly to disagree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. He has stated his distinguished views and he is concerned about the implications in Kent. So am I concerned about the implications in Kent. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pointed out that a number of other local authorities had introduced some kind of legislation.
  1066
  That is entirely true and entirely valid. But the difference is that that kind of legislation affects only the county to which it relates; it does not extend across the border. This legislation extends across the border and affects the whole country.
  If the Minister had been prepared to stand up and say, "This is the blueprint that we should like local authorities to follow; this is the Government's view", that would be different. As it was a private Bill, the noble Lord said that he was neutral and sat on the fence. He got off it for a brief period and then jumped back on again. But he did not help the House. That is the difference.
  My noble friend Lord Rees pointed out that there should be national consistency. I agree with him. I am not trying to deprive the citizens of Kent of any protection, but it is important that this House should consider legislation when it goes beyond affecting only a small area.
  The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, quite rightly said that the Bill has been subjected to technical scrutiny. That is entirely right. I am not looking at it from a point of technical scrutiny but from a point of principle. The point of principle is important for this House. I believe that this House has a role in legislation; I believe that we should not send Bills to another place unless we are entirely confident in those Bills. I know there is an opportunity to petition, but I do not know what will happen in another place.
  There is a duty on this House, as a revising Chamber, not to send to another place anything that we believe is flawed. I believe this Bill is flawed because it affects the nation and, therefore, goes beyond the normal private Bill. I support the aims but I cannot support the Bill. Therefore, I feel that I must move my amendment.
  8.48 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 47.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Arran, E.

  Lucas, L. [Teller]

  Astor, V. [Teller]

  Luke, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Peel, E.

  Flather, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Strange, B.

  Kimball, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Warwick of Undercltffe, B.

  Liverpool, E.

  1067

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L. [Teller]

  Barker, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Blease, L.

  Monson, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Newby, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  David, B.

  Razzall, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Rea, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Rees, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Russell, E

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Sharman, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Hardy of Wath.L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.[Teller]

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Tope, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Varley, L.

  Laming, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Warner, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
  Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
  8.59 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  Clause 69 [Basic definitions]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): In calling Amendment No. 136, I have to advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 137.
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 41, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Earl said: The basis of the referral and listing system set out in Clauses 69 to 71 is that a person who provides care for vulnerable adults is under a duty to refer a care worker to the Secretary of State in certain defined sets of circumstances. The term "care worker" is itself defined in Clause 69(2)(a), (b) and (c) and denotes a person who, in one context or another, is employed to look after someone. In Clause 71, "provider"—that is to say, one who carries on a business—and "care worker"—that is to say, an employee—are clearly quite distinct types and classes of people. My question to the Minister is whether there are circumstances in which a provider can himself be a care worker. In other words, what mechanism, if any, exists to refer to the Secretary of State the name of a
  1068
  provider of care services where that person is guilty of harming a vulnerable adult or of placing such an adult at risk of harm?
  The Bill appears to say that only a provider of care services may refer someone to the Secretary of State and that the terms "provider" and "care worker" are not interchangeable in such a way as, for example, to enable an employee to refer his own employer to the Secretary of State. Although the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has not yet spoken to it, I have a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of his amendment, Amendment No. 144C. It should be possible in certain circumstances for the national care standards commission to refer a provider of services to the Secretary of State if, as appears from the Bill, no one else can. Can the Minister clarify that point? I am troubled that one day there might be a clear-cut case of an individual having harmed a vulnerable adult or placed such an adult at risk of harm without there being any means of referring such a person to the Secretary of State because he or she is the registered proprietor of a care home or clinic and not an employee. I beg to move.
  Lord Rix: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 137 which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 136 and 144C. This amendment follows the logic adopted in earlier amendments, that day service staff have to discharge during the day the same sort of functions as residential care staff have to discharge to those same people in the mornings and the evenings, including support with visits to the toilet, with changing after swimming and with other aspects of personal hygiene. The recruitment of properly vetted staff should not be limited to those whose contractual hours might include hours between 5.30 p.m. and 8 a.m. I believe that such individuals should be added to the list of care workers already on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to speak to the amendment in my name, which broadly deals with the circumstances referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The Government may think that my amendment will add confusion to complexity but the purport is very clear. It may be useful if I give one example. It is not uncommon that in some care homes, particularly perhaps smaller ones, a complaint as to the running of the home will come not from the provider—the proprietor—but from a member of staff. It is altogether possible that a member of staff who persists in claiming with regard to his employer that what is being done is not right could find himself dismissed. If he is dismissed within the qualifying one year in order for him to make a claim for unfair dismissal, he will have no remedy. One could therefore have a rather bizarre set of circumstances where someone who is dismissed unfairly is then compulsorily referred for the blacklisting procedure when in fact he has been trying to do the right and proper thing. As I understand it, the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my

  1069
  amendment address that circumstance. Even if the wording is not perfect, I should like to think that the Government would accept the intent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that I very much take on board the points they have made. If an owner in the specified service appears as a result of misconduct to have harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult, it is important that there is provision for such a person to be referred to the list. It is clear that we need a provision whereby a member of staff can ensure that an employer or an owner who has misbehaved can be referred to the list. We need that added safeguard. We are at present considering how the national commission for care standards could enforce such a scheme. Our intent is to bring forward an amendment to allow the commission to make referrals to the Secretary of State in just such circumstances as both noble Lords have pointed out. On that basis, I hope that they will feel assured.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rix, returned us to the question of day centres. In order for the provisions of this part of the Bill to bite fully on day centres, day centres themselves would have to be regulated by the commission. That would be necessary to ensure that the duty to refer is fully enforced and that centres do not employ banned persons. As I said in Committee last week, it may be that in time day centres are to be brought within the regulatory framework of the commission, although at this stage I cannot give an assurance on whether or when that may be. However, enabling a day centre to check whether a person it is proposing to employ is on the list is a different matter. It is exactly what we had in mind when taking the power in Clause 77(2)(c) to extend access to the list. Once the new system is operational, I can assure the Committee that we shall consider carefully whether enabling day centres to access the list in that way would be appropriate.
  Lord Rix: The dread words "in time" came up again. I was pleased to hear that there was a possibility of access to the list. If there could be a commitment on that by the Government during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, I should be content.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for what the Minister said and shall be happy not to move my amendment on that basis.
  Earl Howe: I echc the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. It was a helpful reply. It is clearly a concern which must be addressed and I am grateful that the Government are doing that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 42, line 4, after ("whom") insert ("clinical or").
  The noble Earl said: I tabled the amendment because I believe it is essential that, as we debate the provisions of Part VI of the Bill, we gain a full understanding from the Government of what the term "vulnerable adult" should be taken to mean. The definition provided by subsection (6) of Clause 69 appears extraordinarily wide. I have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 139 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which makes a good attempt at defining "vulnerable adult" by reference to the physical or mental condition of the person rather than where the person happens to be.
  My amendment is intended to bring us back to the issue of healthcare at home, which we debated on an earlier set of amendments. I ask the Committee to treat this purely as a probing amendment because it is clear, from what the Minister said earlier, that it would not be appropriate to alter the definition of "domiciliary care agency" in the way that I sought.
  The main issue is to ascertain which services the Government intend to set out in regulations as the basis for the definition. The mention of "prescribed services" in subsection (6)(c), as provided by an independent hospital, an independent clinic or NHS body, again suggests fairly wide coverage. Indeed, in a healthcare setting it is not unreasonable to regard most adult patients as being vulnerable in one way or another. If the definition is to include all adult patients in hospitals and clinics, it clearly has major implications in terms of the need to check all potential NHS employees against the proposed register on every relevant appointment or job move. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
  Baroness Barker: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 139. On these Benches, we too are concerned about the wide definition of who is a "vulnerable adult". Earlier in the debate I spoke about the terminology currently used in social services. In recent years there has been a tendency to go down the road of talking about services in terms of those to whom they are provided, rather than the nature of the service itself. "Adult services" is a wide term in current usage. Generally it does not include services to people with learning difficulties. In most social services departments, services for elderly people would be considered to be a separate although related matter.
  It is a question of the definition of a "vulnerable adult". We all have a general understanding of what the Government are trying to do, but the purpose of the amendment is to make it explicit. Much of what we have tried to do elsewhere in the Bill, in terms of getting the balance right on matters such as registration and inspection, depends very much on the nature of those vulnerable people to whom the services are being given. It is part of a whole. We need to view the recipients of the service, the nature and regulation of the service and the inspection of it as part of a whole.

  1071
  It is, therefore, important that we have an explicit and agreed understanding of what the term "vulnerable adult" means. That is the purpose of the amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wish to add to what was said by the two previous speakers and to ask the Minister whether he would be so kind, if not tonight then perhaps in correspondence, to explain the interpretation of "personal care", as set out in Clause 96(3). The provision states:
  "In this Act, the expression 'personal care '… extends to advice and encouragement, but does not include any prescribed activity".
  The definition of "vulnerable adult" when read in conjunction with the definition of "personal care" covers advice and encouragement. So it might embrace the vicar, on one of his visits to elderly patients. One is getting into a wide area.
  The particular elucidation that I seek from the Minister is of the words,
  "but does not include any prescribed activity",
  at the end of Clause 96(3). That may or may not hark back to Clause 69(6)(c), but I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to have clarity on that matter.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the Committee for raising a number of matters. I deal first with the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and in particular that related to our intention in respect of healthcare staff. We have decided that healthcare staff will be covered only if they are concerned with the delivery of certain specified services to be set out in regulations. We have in mind making regulations under the provisions of Clause 69 to bring within the scope of the scheme acute and community settings for learning disabilities, psychiatric (including psychotherapy) services and dedicated elderly services. In this way those services which are accessed mostly by vulnerable adults will be covered. In the first instance we do not intend that more general services, such as accident and emergency provision, should be covered. Clause 69 provides the Secretary of State with sufficient powers to extend the scope of the protection of vulnerable adults to other health-related services by the making of regulations.
  Our intention is to ensure that employees of NHS statutory bodies—which will include all NHS trusts, acute community, combined and primary care trusts once established, health authorities and special authorities and, similarly, independent hospitals and independent clinics—who provide the prescribed services are covered. In the NHS settings it will be possible to enforce compliance since the Secretary of State under Section 12 of the Health Act 1999 has the power of direction in relation to the exercise of functions in health authorities, special health authorities, primary care trusts and other NHS trusts.
  1072
  The noble Earl did not refer to general practitioners. He will be aware that they are in a slightly different position as independent self-employed contractors, and as such they will not be covered by the list. Clearly, there are a number of ways in which their performance and behaviour can be regulated. So far as concern private healthcare settings, we shall take a similar approach to the NHS arrangements, in that the services to be covered by the list will be set out in regulations. Private healthcare providers will be accountable to the regulator, the national care standards commission, which will ensure that registered services have proper arrangements in place to deal with suspected cases of abuse by employees. The Bill attempts to align those people whom the NHS treats with those whose situation is in a sense most akin to the definition of "vulnerable adult" contained in Clause 69(6).
  As to Amendment No. 139, the scheme that we seek to introduce does not cover all elderly people; nor is it intended so to do. Some elderly people would, rightfully, resent the terminology "vulnerable adult". But this is a scheme that will include services in which all the people who receive care can be regarded as vulnerable. Those services are regulated so that the scheme can be enforced—hence the description of "vulnerable adults" in Clause 69, which itself relates back to those services to be regulated by the national care standards commission. It is important to recognise that the provisions related to vulnerable adults in this part of the Bill relate back to the services to be regulated by the commission in respect of adults.
  If we are to provide protection for vulnerable adults, we need a clear focus on the settings where it is truly needed. In that way we can ensure that adults who everyone agrees are vulnerable receive the level of protection they deserve against people who are unsuitable to look after them. To base the scheme on specific services where all the adults being looked after can be regarded as vulnerable means that we can introduce a practical and workable scheme. The important point is that we do not want to dilute the measure so that it makes the scheme less effective.
  The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, asked me specific questions. I shall accept his invitation to write to him on those points.
  Earl Howe: That was an extremely useful clarification of the subsection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
  Clause 69 agreed to.
  Clause 70 agreed to.
  Clause 71 [Persons who provide care for vulnerable adults: duty to refer]:
  Page 42, line 29, at end insert ("proven").
  The noble Earl said: One of the main balances to be struck in this part of the Bill is the balance between the rights of vulnerable adults and the rights of those who care for such adults. I believe that there is dissent in the Committee about the need to provide a means of preventing those who harm vulnerable adults, or place them at risk of harm, from having the opportunity of doing so again. However, to be fair on all concerned the process by which a person's name is included on the Secretary of State's list must be clear, and leave as little room as possible for miscarriages of justice.
  Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 71 list the grounds on which a provider of care for vulnerable adults is required to refer a care worker to the Secretary of State. Subsection (2)(a), upon which other subsections in their different ways depend, states,
  "that the provider ha; dismissed the worker on the grounds of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment) which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult".
  The questions posed by the amendment are these. First, what is the meaning of misconduct? Secondly, what degree of proof and depth of deliberation are required for the grounds mentioned in the subsection to be fulfilled? It will he helpful to hear from the Minister what the term "misconduct" means. If it is defined, as it is at least in part, by whether a vulnerable adult was harmed or placed at risk of harm, it is important that we should know what sort of harm is meant. Does it include honest mistakes or innocent acts of omission? Is one such mistake sufficient? Most mistakes in a professional environment, and many instances of incompetence, are rectified by further training or professional support, not by punitive measures.
  My other worry is that when things go wrong, it is often the result of many factors: pressure on staff, poor procedures or poor management, in situations where individual staff can be made scapegoats. What is to prevent that from happening? How will the system be able to guard against the referral that is malicious? What degree of proof is required? In certain cases it will be clear that an individual is guilty of a deliberate act that has harmed a vulnerable adult because he or she has been dismissed following a formal and conclusive in-house investigation. However, subsection (2) allows for other situations: for example, where the care worker has resigned or retired in circumstances which by the very nature will not have allowed for a balanced and conclusive investigation into the incident that has taken place.
  Clause 71(2)(a) specifies that one set of conditions requiring referral is where a care worker has been suspended pending a decision on whether or not to dismiss him. It is not clear to me what the phrase "on such grounds"means in that subsection, or in subsection (2)(b) and (c). The word "such" refers us back to paragraph (a), which specifies grounds of misconduct, and so on. But the degree to which misconduct needs to be proved seems to vary between each of the subsections. In subsection (2)(a) the misconduct appears to mean proven misconduct. On
  1074
  the other hand, in subsection (2)(b) the need for proof of misconduct is nothing like so high because the circumstances are such that the provider,
  "would have considered dismissing [the person]",
  had he not retired or resigned. The situation there envisaged is where the care worker has already left his job and cannot in consequence speak in his own defence. The wording,
  "would have considered dismissing him",
  implies a situation where the provider cannot be sure whether misconduct has definitely taken place; or, if he believes that it has taken place, whether it is serious enough to justify dismissal.
  As I have mentioned, in subsection (2)(d) the misconduct is by definition suspected, but not proven. I am far from happy with that. Does the Minister agree that the expression "on such grounds" needs clarification? As it stands it is too loose or too woolly to be interpreted with any degree of precision.
  A further reason why I find this issue particularly troubling is subsection (7), which specifies that the Secretary of State, before confirming the inclusion of someone's name on the list, needs to be of the opinion,
  "that the provider reasonably considered the worker to be guilty of misconduct".
  But at least some of the circumstances envisaged in subsections (2) and (3) fall a long way short of a conclusive verdict of guilt. So, besides being internally inconsistent, subsections (2) and (3) do not appear fully compatible with another very important part of the clause. With apologies to the Committee for having gone on so long, I beg to move.
  Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken with great skill and force in connection with Amendment No. 140. Amendment No. 142, to which I speak, has a very similar set of concerns underlying it. The particular concerns that have been put to me are those of the NHS Confederation. They relate to subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d). Subsection (2)(c) says that employers should also refer to the Secretary of State where,
  "the provider has, on such grounds, transferred the worker to a position which is not a care position".
  The noble Earl, with considerable forensic skill, examined the words "on such grounds". That is precisely the area of concern.
  The Department of Health has, I understand, confirmed that the subsection would apply not only to cases in which the transfer is as a result of the decision of a formal disciplinary procedure, but also to cases where workers are transferred to non-care positions where there are concerns, but not proof, about their behaviour.
  The NHS Confederation has put to me two concerns about that paragraph. First, in the service there are many instances where the transfer of a member of staff is the solution that best meets the circumstances. In crude terms, there might not be sufficient evidence to proceed with a disciplinary hearing, but agreement can be reached with the individual or his or her trades

  1075
  union for transfer to other duties. If such a course of action would require referral to the Secretary of State, there is little likelihood of getting the agreement of the individual or the union to the transfer. Such a situation would be of no benefit to anyone, least of all the vulnerable adults who need protection. Paradoxically, those whom the proposal is designed to protect could be more at risk.
  Secondly, real questions of natural justice arise over a referral to the Secretary of State in cases in which there has not been any formal hearing. We shall deal with this later under the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Phillips. The department apparently says that this should not be an issue, because the Secretary of State will do his own investigation and seek the views of the individual and organisations concerned and then make a decision. We believe that this could lead to protracted hearings, potential conflicts and unsatisfactory outcomes.
  In summary, the Bill as drafted will restrict the ability of employers to resolve potential problem situations, will potentially leave vulnerable adults at greater risk and be open to challenge by affected individuals on grounds of natural justice. We have therefore proposed the deletion of both paragraphs (c) and (d).
  I should at this point also refer to representations that have been made to me by the Royal College of Nursing, which also has considerable concerns about the impact of the Bill. It is particularly concerned that there may be malicious referrals. As the noble Earl said, it is likely that the allegations need not have been proved. The Royal College also wants to see a requirement that in any case where a care worker to be referred to the Secretary of State is on the statutory register of nurses, there should be a statutory duty on the provider making the referral to refer the care worker to the registration authority—that is, the UKCC or any body that succeeds it.
  It is concerned that these measures are not adequate to ensure a fair, rigorous and thorough system for placing people on the list and that it may lead to people being wrongly placed on the list, thus blighting their career and livelihood. Like us, the RCN in particular wants to see a much more rigorous system for scrutinising and assessing referrals.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I want to make one point in enlargement of the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the phrase,
  "would have considered dismissing him",
  in Clause 71(2)(b). It occurs also in subsection (3) in circumstances where information becomes available to a provider after a worker has left his or her employ.
  It seems to me that the way Clause 71(2)(b) is drafted means that where a worker has resigned or retired the test to be applied by the provider as to whether to refer to the Secretary of State is lower than
  1076
  that applicable if the worker is in employment when the consideration goes ahead. I say that because if the words,
  "or would have considered dismissing him",
  are left out of the subsection, the test can then be said to be parallel to that in Clause 71(2)(a). By stating that where the worker has resigned or retired in circumstances such that the provider would have dismissed him,
  "or would have considered dismissing him".
  we are creating a new and even lower test upon which the question of referring to the Secretary of State must be decided by the provider.
  I say to the Government that as yet no one has referred to the statutory duty that Clause 71 places on providers. It is not something that they may do; it is something that they must do. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the Committee what the Government believe will be the consequence to a provider of failing to refer a care worker in circumstances where they, the national commission or anyone else consider that they made a wrong judgment.
  There are no sanctions in the Bill—at least, I do not believe that there are—for a failure to refer, but what do the Government believe might be the civil liability of a provider if afterwards the child of, say, a vulnerable adult goes back to the provider and says, "On what I have heard, you should have referred the case. It is a case in which you would have considered it missing had you had that information available and considered the facts at the time"? A vast number of people will be caught up in this crucial clause and it is important to know what the Government believe will happen in civil law.
  Lord Laming: I fear that I may be on my own. but I want to speak against the amendments as strongly as I can. I greatly hope that nothing will be done to weaken this part of the Bill.
  The Committee will recall the lengthy debates which took place during the passage of the Protection of Children Bill, where such matters were carefully examined. During the passage of that Bill, it was, I hope, demonstrated to reasonable satisfaction why it is important that there are proper mechanisms, not for dealing with criminal behaviour (because the criminal law deals with criminal behaviour), but for dealing with issues of professional misconduct which put vulnerable individuals at risk, often seriously; sometimes to the extent of abuse or exploitation.
  During the course of that Bill, we anticipated that other legislation would ensue to address such matters in respect of vulnerable adults, recognising that adults can be as much exposed to exploitation as children. In the course of those discussions, we recognised that some staff change jobs quite frequently; that they may often go to considerable lengths to cover their tracks; and that quite often people in vulnerable positions who are extremely dependent on staff do not feel able to reveal what has happened to them while the member of staff concerned remains employed in a key position

  1077
  in which he or she may have sole charge of that individual from lime to time. In such cases, it is often only when that member of staff is moved on that the vulnerable person concerned has the confidence to share some of his. sometimes dreadful experiences.
  On the other hand, experience has shown that some employers—that is, providers— go to considerable lengths to avoid facing up to the implications of the behaviour of an employee. Whether or not it is because of a lack of courage, or whether it is because they do not want the good name of their establishment or centre to be questioned, they transfer people to posts which may well work to the advantage of both the provider and the member of staff, but certainly do not necessarily work to the advantage and the benefit of vulnerable people where that worker may have access to them in quite different circumstances.
  I stress that we are discussing misconduct, not criminal behaviour: and it is quite clear what the standards of professional misconduct are—they are clearly understood. Cases involving proof and those where issues comes to light after the person has resigned or moved on, where, had that person been in post, the provider would have considered the issue, and those where the person implicated has been transferred to another post, are important matters for which it would be quite wrong of the Committee to weaken the range of possibilities that a provider must make.
  Of course there are safeguards; they are built into appeal mechanisms and the rights of employees, not only in respect of employment legislation—because employers must comply with employment legislation, which is extremely detailed—but also in the system dealing with professional misconduct and professional discipline. There are thus proper mechanisms for appeal and safeguards. There are also safeguards which recognise that, of course, from time to time a malicious complaint may be made. Therefore, those matters must be handled in a way which is fair to all concerned. However, at the end of the day it must be understood that the most vulnerable person is the user of services. Because that person is the most vulnerable and is most likely to be exploited or abused, we must ensure that we build in for that person a system which is sufficiently robust and rigorous to deal with the different ways in which staff can behave and the ways in which people can be exposed to unacceptable behaviour.
  I hope very much that the amendments, well intended though they are, will not be carried because I believe that there must be a proper balance which ensures that dependent people are recognised and that every effort is made to deal with their particular needs.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, considers that I use the word "balance" rather a lot. I remember that when we debated the Protection of Children Act in your Lordships' House it was a word which I used frequently.
  1078
  I believe that we have heard in today's debate various sides of that balance. It is genuinely difficult to draw the right balance between the necessary rights of individuals, to which noble Lords opposite have referred, and the necessary protection of vulnerable people. The provisions in the Bill attempt to draw the right balance alongside the additional safeguards that are drawn, first, by the role of the Secretary of State and then by the ability of a person to appeal to the tribunal. I believe it is important that when we debate those questions we bear in mind both that balance and the rights of individuals to appeal ultimately to a tribunal if they believe that they have been dealt with wrongly.
  Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendment No. 140. I very much accept the point that we do not want inappropriate or malicious references to the list. Of course not. However, if the list is to serve its purpose and be a true protection for vulnerable adults against people who would seek to do them harm, we need employers to refer cases to the Secretary of State where protection of vulnerable adults can be improved by such referrals.
  It is lawful for an employer to dismiss a worker where, after investigation, the employer has a owell-founded belief that the misconduct has been committed. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked for the meaning of "misconduct". My understanding is that it means any behaviour which risks harm to a vulnerable adult. Included within that could be omissions or negligent acts, such as failing to feed a particular vulnerable adult. Where, after investigation, the employer has a well-founded belief that misconduct has been committed, it would not be desirable to go beyond that by placing some additional formal requirement of proof on employers. The whole basis of the Bill is to ensure that the schemes reflect what employers already do in the workplace in cases of a dismissal for misconduct. We want to make sure that the scheme is workable for them. We do not want the scheme to put an undesirable burden on them.
  Inclusion in the list will not be automatic for everyone who is referred. The Secretary of State will seek the views of the person to be referred. He must believe that the employer has acted reasonably and, in addition, consider that the individual is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults before he will conclude that an individual should be included on the list. I fear that the amendment could restrict the intention of those provisions to increase the level of safety afforded to vulnerable adults. Such an increase in safety is the outcome that we wish to achieve and we must ensure that we do so for the sake of the service users.
  I turn to Amendment No. 142. The noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the concerns of the NHS Confederation. In this instance, I do not agree with the points which have been made. Where an employer has transferred an individual, has suspended him or has temporarily transferred him away from caring for vulnerable adults, surely it is important that those cases should be referred to the list if we are to offer vulnerable adults the degree of protection which they deserve.

  1079
  The noble Lord said that where there was suspicion about the actions of such a person, it was easier for an employer simply to move him away into a non-caring position. But it is not right to say that that solves the problem. The Bill contains those clauses in order to make sure that the employer deals with the issue with the ultimate protection of vulnerable people in mind.
  I recognise that for employers who are facing up to those responsibilities, those issues will cause them concern and they will give considerable thought to how those matters will work out in practice. We shall ensure that appropriate guidance is published to enable them to understand what are their particular responsibilities.
  In relation to the differences between Clause 71(2)(a) and Clause 71(2)(b), the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked whether there was a lower test. If a person has left the employment, although the employer may have suspicions relating to that individual, it may simply not be possible to carry out the thorough investigation which would be expected under Clause 71(2)(a), although there may be sufficient evidence to warrant a referral to the Secretary of State.
  Of course, the safeguard is the Secretary of State's own decision in relation to provisional listing, confirmation of listing and the question of appeals.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He referred to the thorough investigation of the facts to take place under Clause 71(2)(a). Will he tell the Committee how that measure provides for a thorough investigation of the facts?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It follows that the employer has carried out a proper investigation which has then led to the employer being dismissed.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: But does the Minister accept that the problem is that he may not have carried out a thorough investigation and that may be the reason that it would be grossly unjust for the employee concerned to be put on the provisional or permanent list?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Safeguards exist. First, in relation to any decision made by the Secretary of State provisionally to list that person, papers will need to be referred by the employer. Those papers must fit into the criteria under Clause 71(7)(a) and Clause 71(7)(b) so that inadequately prepared cases are weeded out at that stage.
  There is then the additional safeguard that the Secretary of State must be of the opinion that both paragraphs (7)(a) and (7)(b) are satisfied. There is a further safeguard in relation to the appeal which a person can make to a tribunal.
  The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked about the issue of sanctions. He is quite right about that. If establishments regulated under the provisions of this Bill were found not to have appropriately referred
  1080
  individuals whom they employed to the Secretary of State, that would be a serious matter in relation to whether they were carrying on in an appropriate way for an establishment regulated under this legislation. It would then be for the commission to pursue that matter with the establishment. As regards the National Health Service, that would be a matter for management action by the Secretary of State. I shall not bore the House by describing the accountability chain between the NHS and the Secretary of State, but it is a pretty strong line of accountability. I hope that I have answered most of the points raised.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Howe, responds, perhaps I may say that I appreciate the Minister's reply and his desire to achieve a balance in this clause between natural justice and proper protection for vulnerable people. However, with the greatest respect, on these Benches we believe that that balance has not been struck in the proper fashion.
  In this clause the approach seems to be that one sweeps up into the net a whole collection of possible allegations and circumstances which may be unproven; referral takes place and one then relies on the tribunal to sort everything out if the individual chooses to appeal. We prefer to take a rather more measured approach at the earlier stage so that everything is not swept up with referral taking place for a broad collection of allegations and circumstances.
  Clearly, there is a strong difference of approach. I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected. However, one has this balance to keep. We do not believe that it has yet been struck in the proper fashion. There are a number of further amendments to this section of the Bill. I do not wish to prolong the debate on this clause unduly. However, we may well return to this at a future date.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I thought I detected in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, a degree of impatience in so far as many of these matters were debated at some length during the passage of the Protection of Children Act—a series of debates I recall with great clarity. However, I respectfully point out to the noble Lord that this is a different Bill with different effects and containing different provisions. It is perfectly right and proper that we should explore the clauses in as much detail as we feel necessary.
  I have to say to the noble Lord that if the meaning of the word "misconduct" is clear to him without explanation, it certainly is not clear to me. I was grateful to the Minister for his clarification of the meaning of the word. It worries me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the degree of proof that is required to refer somebody on the ground of misconduct that would harm a vulnerable adult or place a vulnerable adult at risk of harm is low. The answer seems to be that very little proof is required.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the balance to which the Minister referred at the outset of his remarks, and I wonder about that. Nevertheless,

  1081
  in view of the time I do not propose to say more at this stage. I shall read the Minister's reply and reflect on it carefully, reserving the right to bring the matter back at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 140A:
  Page 42. line 32, after (-resigned") insert (", been made red undant" ).
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 140A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 142A, 142B, 142C, 144A and 144B, which address a single point. I hope it will be taken as a sign by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the Government that I have no partiality vis à vis this Bill; I want to see it succeed in its proper purposes.
  One of the Bills proper purposes, and an important one, is to protect vulnerable people of whatever age against maltreatment by whomsoever. In Clause 71 there is a gap in the duty to refer a case in relation to somebody who may not have been dismissed for misconduct; may not have resigned and may not have retired; but may have been made redundant.
  I make clear at the outset that, whereas dismissal on its own can include redundancy, Clause 71 as drafted will not. The only dismissal referred to in that clause is dismissal for misconduct. If I can help the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am confident that, in relation to the trouble he had with the words, "on such grounds" in Clause 71(2)(b), .;c) and (d), they all refer to dismissal for misconduct.
  We have the situation, therefore, where an employee could be made redundant in circumstances where, had he or she been dismissed, retired, been transferred or suspended, there should have been a reference to the Secretary of State, and where public interest declares that there should be a reference.
  I may sound unduly cynical, but I fear that there are cases—the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred indirectly to one such —where the proprietors of a care home and an employee may each have reasons, albeit completely different ones, for settling on redundancy as a means of ending an employment rather than on any of the other possibilities. For example, the care home proprietor may want to avoid potentially bad publicity from a reference being made. Though it may be said that the reference would be secret, there are many ways in which information can be leaked. If a local paper published the fact that there had been a reference, that would not be defamatory and would not breach any law.
  Therefore a care home proprietor may want to hush up the circumstances in which he was getting rid of an employee. The employee would do a deal, go quietly, shut up and all would be well; the home would have got rid of a lousy employee but in circumstances where there would not be a reference. That is the point of these amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Laming: I support the thrust of these amendments in trying to fill another bolthole in which
  1082
  some people will seek to hide in order to avoid tackling some of these issues. Perhaps while I am on my feet I may apologise if I showed the impatience of which I was accused earlier.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for raising these issues.
  Clearly our debates in this area are important in teasing out some of the concerns which reputable employers have about the Bill. It is my hope that in our debates we reassure those people that the Bill is workable and is able to be fair to all those concerned. As I said earlier, the intent is to issue guidance to employers when the scheme begins. I hope that in that guidance we can pick up some of the anxieties and operational issues which noble Lords will no doubt continue to identify during the course of this Bill.
  Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 142A, 142B and 142C. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, not only put the point very well but also anticipated my response; namely, that I am certainly advised that redundancy is covered by the term "dismissal". Redundancy is one of the lawful means of dismissal. Therefore, the point in relation to the first three amendments is unnecessary. However, I take the point in relation to Amendments Nos. 140A, 144A and 144B. Indeed, we would clearly wish to avoid the circumstances described by the noble Lord in which an employer and a worker might collude to create an appearance of redundancy in order to evade the requirements of the Bill. I should like to take that matter away and give it further consideration.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
  10 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 143A:
  Page 43. line 14, at end insert ("if it appears to him that, unless such a listing is made, there will be a serious risk to a person's life, health or well being").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 143B. Both these amendments go to the heart of arguably as important a single issue as there is in the Bill; namely, the proper balance to be struck between, on the one hand, protection of vulnerable people and, on the other hand, fairness to employees and workers.
  On Second Reading, I believe I am right in saying that I was the only Member of this Chamber who raised this issue. Indeed, it was gratifying afterwards to hear from several other speakers who talked about other aspects in the debate that they were unaware of this problem. In all cases they supported the attempt that I was then making to persuade the Government to rejig the balance. I should also like to say how grateful I am to the Minister and his civil servants for affording me very open and helpful discussions. I hope that that practice will continue.
  I fully share the wish on the part of this Chamber to make the Bill as effective as it can be. I also fully accept the beneficence of the general thrust of the legislation.
  The importance of any amendment is, of course, directly related to the scale of the problem that it addresses. Here we have an audience of 2 million—that is the best estimate that I can get of the numbers employed within the care industries which will be covered and governed by this piece of legislation. Many of those workers are in small units; indeed, sometimes two or three employees is not uncommon, especially in small care homes. Not many of those workers appear to be members of unions. Some are members of professional bodies, but most of them are not.
  As far as I can see, most of those 2 million workers will come within the purview of the blacklisting procedure laid down in Clause 71; that is to say, first, they are people who have or are able to have regular contact with adults in care homes; secondly, those in clinics or hospitals—public or private; and, thirdly, those concerned with the provision of personal care for people in their own homes who are ill, infirm or disabled. As I mentioned when we discussed an earlier amendment, "personal care" is extremely wide and extends to those who merely give "advice and encouragement".
  When the Bill talks of employment, it also uses that word in an abnormal way. I cannot find any precedent for the breadth of interpretation to be given to it, other than in the Protection of Children Act passed in the summer of last year. It will extend to unpaid workers, to those without contracts, to volunteers and to those who provide independent services—chiropodists to solicitors, one might say. It might even cover other groups who make regular visits to those in their community, for example people who provide meals on wheels.
  Clause 71—the key clause—requires a person who provides care for vulnerable adults to refer to the Secretary of State, as we have heard, anyone dismissed for misconduct, whether or not incidentally that was misconduct in the course of their work. That is an important widening qualification. As we have also heard, "misconduct" is not defined; "harm" is. "Harm" in this Bill covers,
  "any ill treatment … which is not physical".
  It would, for example, cover verbal abuse or bullying. It could cover a nurse or an orderly who treated a patient unkindly so that that patient became distressed, even if the unkindness was confined to "sending the patient to Coventry", for example. It is necessary to get clear in our minds the wide scope of this provision in order to understand the deep importance of the issues.
  As I say, the ambit of the Bill is vast. If anyone is blacklisted—I suppose that this is the heart of all this—the reputation and the career of that person are destroyed, not just hindered or undermined, but destroyed. In many ways the consequence of a blacklisting will in many cases be worse than
  1084
  conviction for a criminal offence, even though the standard or test by which someone is convicted of a criminal offence is that of "beyond reasonable doubt". As we have heard already in this Bill in relation to this provision, the standard test is one of civil liability; namely, a balance of probabilities. Indeed the language used in Clause 71 is that the Minister "is of the opinion"—an even lower test than others that one finds in comparable legislation. Therefore this measure could cover health visitors, domiciliary helpers, orderlies, meals on wheels providers, nursing auxiliaries, doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, masseurs or anyone else who provides services.
  I do not criticise any of that. It seems to me to be fair enough to make the net wide. But if the net is wide, the safeguards against people being caught up in it unjustly must be rigorous. The effect of being put on the blacklist, as I have described, is devastating.
  The heart of the inadequacy is the fact that the listing process does not give those listed any opportunity to cross-examine—whether themselves or by a representative—their accusers before being listed. Worse still, it does not even give the person to be listed the right to make oral representations. All that he or she can do is to submit written observations under Clause 71(5) to the civil servant charged with deciding whether he or she is to go on the blacklist permanently.
  Let us imagine a straightforward case in which the proprietor of a care home says that Alice Brown has failed to do this or that as commanded, perhaps to help an old person to have a bath, or to lift them in a certain way, or to change the bed linen at a certain time, or to feed them in a certain manner, or to respond to their calls within a certain time, or to deal with patient paperwork in a certain way. Let us suppose that Alice Brown is in fact a conscientious nurse who has criticisms of the way in which the patients are treated in a particular care home. Let us suppose further that the proprietors resent and are defensive about the criticisms she voices. Particularly if the proprietors wanted to ensure that the nurse was got rid of before the one-year qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal, they might well be tempted to give her notice on grounds of misconduct—let us say, three or four minor departures from detailed instructions, even oral instructions, of the sort that I have indicated.
  Whether the proprietors are officious and wrong-headed, or even calculatingly malicious, they could use the statutory duty under Clause 71 to refer the care worker to the Secretary of State. He would then be obliged, unless the details of misconduct do not even constitute a prima facie case, to put the worker on the provisional listing before deciding whether to make that permanent. At that moment the damage has been done.
  Thereafter, as the Bill states, the civil servant is required under Clause 71(5) to pass the reference from the provider to the complainant and to give him or her the opportunity to submit written observations.
  It is not a great feat of imagination to think of many so-called ordinary employees, most of them without trade union assistance, most of them not thinking to

  1085
  get professional help or perhaps being unable to afford it, making a pretty bad stab at written representations in response to the reference.
  And what if the response, in any event, is a flat denial of the facts given by the proprietor or provider who has made the written reference? For example, what if they say that the instructions were never clear and that there were no adverse consequences to the patient? What if the person accused goes on to say that the real reason that she was got rid of was that the care home was badly run and she had spoken up about it? How does the poor civil servant in Whitehall resolve this? How on earth can a basic conflict of purported fact be resolved by a civil servant shuffling pieces of paper between the complainant and the complainee when he is sitting in Whitehall and seeing neither of them?
  In previous debates the Government have made clear that they do not claim that the process leading up to the permanent listing is a full or rigorous test of facts; they do not claim that it is a test of merits. As I say, the Bill merely refers to the Secretary of State at the end of the process being "of the opinion that the (proprietors of the home) reasonably considered the worker to be guilty of misconduct". An opinion on an opinion without any test of the facts can destroy the career and livelihood of the person concerned.
  Anyone who has had any part in judging disputes as to fact knows that it is utterly impossible to get anywhere near the root of the truth without an oral hearing. That is one of the basic rules of justice.
  I hope your Lordships will think it worth while if I mention an opinion I have taken from Professor Jeffrey Jowell, QC, who is Dean of the Faculty of Law at University College London. I wanted an expert opinion on the legal merits or demerits of what we are debating. He is the co-author with the Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf, of a standard work on administrative law He said:
  "The basic principle is clear: No one should be deprived of a right, interest or even a legitimate expectation without a fair hearing. Taking the Secretary of State's (SOS) provisional decision first, the Bill clearly offends that principle. The question then is Does the situation here fall within one of the recognised exceptions to that principle?"
  Which are, firstly,
  "where the situation requires emergency action",
  and, secondly,
  "where the decision is "preliminary" and will be followed by one where a fair hearing will be provided".
  He gives cases before concluding that,
  "the Bill surely offends principles of English administrative law in respect of the SOS's provisional decision in its failure to provide a fair hearing to those included in the list".
  What does he then say about the next step in the procedure, whereby the Secretary of State receives observations from the person accused? He says this:
  "Turning now to the SOS's final decision, after the investigation under s.71(5)(a) and (b), the question here is whether that investigation qualifies as procedurally fair. It seems clear to me that a decision of this kind … carrying major implications in respect of a person's reputation, character and livelihood, requires
  1086
  the fullest content of natural justice. That normally means an oral hearing, opportunity to call witnesses, the right of cross-examination, and even, possibly, reasons for decision".
  I may say that I have been unable to find any comparable field in our legislation where there is no opportunity for oral representations or an oral hearing before someone is blacklisted in the manner and with the consequences that we are dealing with here. Solicitors and doctors, for example, have an elaborate tribunal system ab initio with a right of appeal to the High Court. Teachers are protected by elaborate disciplinary hearings, usually involving governors of schools, before they are ever dismissed or suspended or transferred. In any event, the relevant regulations of 1993 and the Education Reform Act 1988 to which they relate, overwhelmingly refer to cases where teachers have been convicted before a court of law for specified sexual offences.
  I now turn to my amendments. They provide a new and reasonable, balanced and wieldy, practical set of arrangements. First, they give the worker or the provider, where that is relevant, an opportunity to make oral representations to the civil servant dealing with the matter. Secondly, subsection (d) gives the civil servant, at any point in his or her deliberations, the power and discretion to transfer the matter to the tribunal so that the tribunal can decide the matter, where he or she considers that that, in all fairness, should be done. Thus, two simple but powerful protections have been introduced for employees. But, I have also provided that, instead of people being put straight on to the provisional list, that action will be replaced by a situation where they go on to the provisional list only if it appears to the person looking at the matter that,
  "unless such a listing is made there will be a serious risk to a person's life, health or well being".
  Those words have been carried from Section 18 of the Bill, which provides that protection for a care home in danger of being delisted. A justice of the peace must be satisfied of that situation before any delisting can take place. Is the Minister questioning that point? I think not.
  The final link in this chain of reform that I have provided for is that, if a civil servant decides not to refer the case to the tribunal, the worker can request that it is passed to the tribunal. It will then be for the civil servant to decide, "Yes, in all the circumstances I think that is fair", or, if he declines to accept the request, the worker can make an appeal direct to the tribunal for it to hear the matter ab initio
  If I had been more zealous in advocating this course, I could have provided a more stringent set of protections for the worker. However, I believe that these provisions are fair. I have tried to make them both fair and practical.
  In my final comments I will say only this. It is not simply a question of fairness to employees as against the need to protect the vulnerable old and young. At the root of this matter lies a crucial question of fairness towards those who sustain the whole of the care industry. If there is no fairness, then there will be repercussions in ways that one cannot quantify or

  1087
  foretell in terms of the calibre of people who will be willing to subject themselves to the risks which the present regime provided by the Bill represents. I need hardly say to any noble Lord in the Chamber that to be put onto this blacklist and to have one's reputation and livelihood simply terminated there and then is a risk that, in this day and age, most people do not want to contemplate. All those in the Chamber who know anything of the social work, teaching or care scenes, realise that false criticisms are not unknown. Deluded criticisms are common among the aged. I recommend to the Committee that whatever may have been passed in the Protection of Children Act, in the Bill before us we must get it right. I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: After such a formidable indictment of these clauses I need say only a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has no reason whatever to apologise for going into the matter at some length. His has been one of the most powerful speeches I have heard in the House for a long time.
  I had not appreciated quite how one-sided is the Bill. The noble Lord has drawn the issue to our attention in stark and compelling terms and I believe that the Government would be very unwise if they did not listen carefully to what has been said and to take the necessary action to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, that fairness is shown to people whose lives may otherwise be totally destroyed.
  As the noble Lord was making his case—I was following his arguments and his references to the clauses—one began to realise that one was catching echoes of the attack on paedophiles over the past 18 months and the extremely unpleasant cases that have come to light. We have had the strong public feeling that such people really should be dealt with very condignly and that there should be total protection for the children finding themselves in that situation. Somehow that attitude of mind has come over into this legislation, which, as the noble Lord said, is drawn infinitely more widely.
  The noble Lord referred to two million people. I have not attempted to make the calculation myself. One knows that roughly one million people are engaged in the caring side and if one adds the National Health Service people and all the others who would be providing independent services, I am sure that that is the kind of figure it could be. One's mind boggles and one asks how on earth the clause has reached this stage without anyone raising the question of whether it will be fair to the people against whom these charges will be made.
  The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has performed an extremely valuable service. I hope that we shall get our teeth into this and hang onto it and that when the Bill finally leaves this House it will have had this manifest unfairness excised from it and a much fairer regime put in its place.
  Earl Howe: There is nothing I can say to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and my noble friend
  1088
  Lord Jenkin have said, except that, from the perspective of the Official Opposition, I strongly support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He has indeed done the Committee a great service. He has made a powerful case. I hope that the Minister will take serious note of all the points that he made.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for the care and attention which he has given to these clauses. I can assure the Committee that I shall take very careful account of all the points made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about the lack of fairness in the provisions. What came through in our debates on the Protection of Children Bill as it went through the House was that the lack of a system to protect vulnerable adults had meant that unsuitable workers had perhaps been dismissed from one employment only to find new employment in a similar position at a nearby establishment or agency.
  Over the years there have been examples of service failure where workers, as a result of neglect or deliberate acts, have caused harm to elderly people or adults with learning disabilities. One can think of one example where adults with learning disabilities were treated very badly until inspectors stepped in and the home was closed. But in that case the nurse employed at the home at the time subsequently obtained work in another care institution.
  It is one of our major aims in modernising social care to improve the protection of vulnerable people, whatever their age or condition. That is why we wanted to introduce this scheme to protect vulnerable adults by putting in place measures to put out and keep out of the workforce individuals who have shown themselves to be unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults.
  The second consideration we had in mind in developing the Bill was the need to strike the right balance between the protection of vulnerable adults and safeguarding the rights of individual workers. We believe that here we have achieved that balance. In the first place, a worker who is the subject of any referral to the Secretary of State will know from the outset that a referral has been made and will have every opportunity to submit written observations to the Secretary of State.
  Secondly, under Clause 73(2), a person who has been provisionally listed for a period of more than nine months may seek leave from the tribunal for it to determine the matter finally. Thirdly, we have provided, under Clause 73(1), for an appeal to the tribunal against a decision to list an individual. Fourthly, under Clause 74 we have provided for a person to ask the tribunal to review inclusion in the list, with the possibility of having the listing removed if the person has been listed for a continuous period of at least 10 years.

  1089
  Finally, under Clause 70(3), the Secretary of State may remove an individual from the list if he is satisfied that inclusion on the list was wrong at the outset because, for example, new evidence comes to light or a criminal conviction is overturned.
  Although Members of the Committee may disagree with the exact terms of the Bill, I hope it will be accepted that a great deal of effort has been put into trying to balance the overriding need to protect vulnerable adults, with the need to have safeguards, so far as is reasonable, to protect the rights of the individuals. As the Committee knows, those reflect in broad terms the provisions that we debated in the Protection of Children Bill.
  As regards the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, first in Amendment No. 143A, it is our belief that the amendment would seriously weaken the scheme we have devised for protecting vulnerable adults. It seems to us that it is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to list individuals provisionally and has flexibility in the way that he can use the power, in order to ensure that the protection of vulnerable adults is satisfied.
  We have sought to strike the right balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the individual worker in those proposals. The question of listing will only arise where there appears to have been a risk of harm to a vulnerable adult. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted Clause 18, where the test of a serious risk to a person's life, health or well-being is used and consideration is given to applying to a justice of the peace to close a home immediately. It is our view that there is no direct read-across to the provisional listing of an individual, since the problems within a home can often be remedied by the removal of one or more individuals from it; not so when it is a matter of the individual worker.
  In considering provisional listing of an individual, the Secretary of State needs to be able to take a broad view in the interests of all concerned and not to be hampered by the consideration that this amendment would impose upon him.
  In Amendment No. 143B, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also put forward the potential introduction of a right to make oral representations to the Secretary of State and to introduce circumstances in which cases might be referred immediately to the independent appeal tribunal, bypassing the Secretary of State's decision to confirm listing or otherwise, following observations. I am not persuaded that oral representations to the Secretary of State are the right way forward, bearing in mind the right to make them at a later stage to the tribunal. Nor do I think it appropriate for the tribunal to be asked to rule on whether listed persons should have the right to go to it before the Secretary of State has confirmed the listing. However, I am sympathetic to the suggestion that the Secretary of State should be able to refer a case directly to the tribunal. One can see that in certain circumstances that may be advantageous. I am happy to take that matter away to consider it further.
  1090
  In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I accept that the points he makes are strongly held and that his concerns about the rights of individuals under the Bill are very important. But we are debating this Bill against the backdrop of serious concerns about the vulnerability of adults and the need to protect them from unscrupulous employees—hence the whole concept of provisional listing to provide an immediate safeguard for the protection of vulnerable adults. Procedures must then be followed before that person's place in the list can be confirmed, with the possibility of that individual appealing to the tribunal. I doubt that I shall persuade the noble Lord that the Government have achieved the right balance. This is a matter to which we have given great consideration and we believe that we have struck a fair balance between the two needs identified in the debate.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the reasons that he did. I am encouraged at least by one concession related to the discretion of the civil servant who deals with the matter to make his or her own reference to the tribunal, because in fairness he or she ought so to do As he anticipated, I am disappointed that the Government have gone no further than the position they adopted under the Protection of Children Act 1999. There are many Members of this House who, no doubt through their own fault, failed to latch on to the particular provisions in the Protection of Children Act 1999. We say that two wrongs do not make a right.
  When I listened to the response of the Minister I wondered why the criminal law provided the various protections it does. For example, why should someone accused of rape, grievous bodily harm, or even worse crimes, be allowed to remain at large while the wheels of justice grind slowly, as they often do, especially as the prospects of an accused getting off a criminal charge, given the different tests involved and the right to jury trial, are much greater than the prospects of an individual escaping from this blacklist?
  I was considerably sobered to hear the Minister say, "Don't worry, old chap, because at the end of he day a person can go to the tribunal and have a hearing". It is all very well to say that when one's career is in ruins because one's name is on the permanent list and the whole world can search it, as it must. It is no answer to say that a person whose reputation is destroyed and who has lost his livelihood can, perhaps following vast expense, have a tribunal decision six to nine months—even 12 months—later that vindicates him. I urge the Minister to go away and consider in particular the provisional listing.
  I do not see that what is good and fair for the proprietors of a care home under Clause 18 of this Bill is unfair for an individual who is in greater jeopardy. His jeopardy is greater because the people who run the care home can go away and find other employment, whereas the person placed on the provisional blacklist is a dead man or woman. He or she does not even have a justice of the peace before whom a case can be brought in order for such an order to he made, as is

  1091
  required under Clause 18. It is no good the Minister saying that there is no read-across from Clause 18 to Clause 71. The read-across is basic justice. This is not a trivial matter: one is talking about the reputation and livelihood of potentially many people. Even if there were only 10 people at risk, this House should protect them. It depresses me that the party in government, which has been a stalwart defender of basic rights—it brought in the Human Rights Act and God bless it for that—should be apparently blind on this issue to what most of us would call the simple basics of fair procedure. The Minister made no reference to the opinion of Professor Jowell. I suggest that that is simply because no answer can be given.
  Forgive the warmth of my address, but it is a hugely important matter and I believe that other noble Lords who have spoken share that view. The fact that there are few Members present tonight should not mislead the Government into thinking that they can get away with the matter with few noticing. I urge them to rethink the issue even though it will reflect back on to the Protection of Children Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but hope to return to the issue.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may say that I endorse everything he said. I listened with the greatest care to the Minister's reply. He gave five safeguards that the Government believe they have built into the Bill. With the greatest respect to the Minister, if he again examines them, he will see that they do not begin to answer the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
  The noble Lord referred to a provisional list. There must be some form of suspension pending the necessary full inquiry. That seems to be the way ahead here. I understand the case the Government make: that if someone has a serious accusation made against him, he should not be able to rush off and get another job. There should be the equivalent to a suspension which indicates that there is a question mark; so let us examine this fully. A full examination must include oral hearings and the opportunity to hear witnesses for both sides. One has seen that in many disciplinary hearings in the public sector: the National Health Service, local government and elsewhere. If, at the conclusion of that, it is decided that there has been misconduct (or whatever is the trigger), one puts the individual on the black list, saying, "This person has shown himself completely unsuitable for work in this kind of environment. He may not get another job in this environment". That is such a condign penalty that it must occur only after proper procedures.
  If this House has performed no other purpose, it has exposed the dangers that lie in Clause 71. It covers pages of the statute book and yet one can imagine the opportunities almost for blackmail: "We'll get you". One knows of such attitudes in some rather closed communities where there are bad relations, and so on. This kind of weapon could be a form of legal bullying of a very unpleasant kind. Proper protection has to be built in.
  1092
  I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming and recognise that he seeks to defend the indefensible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 143B to 144C not moved.]
  Clause 71 agreed to.
  Clause 72 [Employment agencies and businesses: duty to refer]:
  [Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
  Clauses 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73 agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Applications for removal from list]:
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 45, line 46, after ("70") insert ("or section I of the 1999 Act").
  The noble Earl said: During the passage of the Protection of Children Act last year, I argued that there may well be circumstances in which the imposition of a lifetime's ban on working with children was unjust and inappropriate. The sorts of circumstances that I considered fell into that category were those where an individual had harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm, not out of any malice but out of gross incompetence arising from, say, youthful inexperience. The initial verdict of misconduct could have been arrived at perfectly properly, but years later, when the individual might have grown up and perhaps brought up a young family of his or her own, it might well be appropriate to review the initial judgment that he or she was for ever unsuitable to work with children.
  I thought that I detected at least some sympathy on the part of the Government with the arguments that I advanced, but it was, alas, not enough to convince them that the Bill should be amended in the way that I suggested. It was, therefore, with some pleasure that I noted the inclusion in this Bill of Clause 74, which enables an individual who has been included on the Secretary of State's list for at least 10 years as a result of past misconduct involving vulnerable adults to apply to the tribunal to have his or her name removed from the list and thereby effectively to rehabilitate himself or herself. This provision, for me, provides a considerable counterweight to my political and ethical concerns over granting a right to the state to debar an individual from being employed in a particular field for the rest of his or her life, regardless of circumstances.
  We must bear in mind that, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has graphically reminded us, the procedure by which an individual has his or her name confirmed on the list in the first instance is not a judicial one; it is an administrative one. In my view, there really must be a judicial or quasi-judicial means of appeal against the Secretary of State's decision, first, for those who consider that their names have been wrongly included in the list from the outset, and, secondly, for those whose subsequent conduct has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they no longer pose a threat to vulnerable adults. Both such types of appeal are allowed for in the Bill.
  However, the Protection of Children Act does not contain any provision parallel to that in this clause. My amendment seeks to rectify that. I cannot see any difference in principle between the rights of individuals blacklisted under this Bill and the rights of those blacklisted under the Protection of Children Act. It appears from the clause that the Government consider there to be good reasons for allowing a means of appeal for those who feel that they should be redeemed or rehabilitated. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister what those reasons are. I hope that he will go on to tell me that the Government are prepared to take a second look at the issue as it relates to the Protection of Children Act. I beg to move.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like briefly to identify myself with everything that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in moving the amendment. I would just add that the circumstances in which teachers can have themselves taken off the barring list under their regulations are a good deal more generous than those included in this clause, even with the amendment we are now discussing. One of the things the Government might like to do before Report is to consider introducing the wider scope of the teachers' regulations into the provisions in this Bill.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising this matter. He is quite right: we had a very good debate on it at the Report stage of consideration of the Protection of Children Bill. I very much accept the general point of principle that he has made. However, the Government would prefer to use an alternative mechanism to reach the same point.
  On 25th January 1999, the report of an interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people working with children and on abuse of trust in relation to children was placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report set out mechanisms for preventing unsuitable people working with children and its recommendations included a review mechanism under which a person banned from working with children could seek to have the ban lifted. Such an application for renewal would fall to a tribunal set up under the Protection of Children Act and would be available only 10 years after the imposition of the ban or the release from prison, whichever is later; at 10-year intervals thereafter; and should be available only if the banned individual can demonstrate exceptional circumstances why the ban should be removed.
  The Government have accepted the broad principles of those recommendations, including a review mechanism for those banned from working with children. They have decided that they would like to implement those proposals through the crime and protection Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech and will be introduced in this Session. I hope that that meets the noble Earl's concern and that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
  10.45 p.m.
  Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that answer which is a welcome response to my concerns. It is a pity that during the passage of the Protection of Children Bill the Government were not able to be more accommodating. I am not sure why that was; perhaps they had not completed their deliberations. However, there would have been an opportunity for them to hasten their deliberations in view of the strength of feeling then expressed. Nevertheless, the main point is to reached the desired position, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Effect of inclusion list]:
  [Amendment No. 146A not moved.]
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 146B:
  Page 46, line 25, at end insert—
  ("(4) The Secretary of State may by order add to the category of persons subject to this section.").
  The noble Lord said: I must be frank in admitting that when I tried to construe Clause 75 I was not aware that the phrase "person who provides care" is defined in Clause 69(7). That definition is satisfactory in terms of the evil I tried to avoid in Amendment No. 146A. If the Government believe that there is virtue in the extra discretion given in Amendment No. 146B, I am happy to move it. I beg to move.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for raising this matter. It is our intention to bring forward an amendment to create an appropriate power to extend the provisions of the scheme to include other services. I wonder whether on that basis the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should be delighted to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  Clauses 76 to 85 agreed to.
  Clause 86 [Boarding schools: national minimum standards]:
  [Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
  Clause 86 agreed to.
  Clauses 87 to 94 agreed to.
  Clause 95 [Supplementary and consequential provision etc.]L:
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 148:
  Page 57, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(3) An order under subsection (1) amending or repealing an enactment, instrument or document shall be laid in draft before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Earl said: I apologise to those Members of the Committee who were hoping to speak to Clause 90. I felt that in view of the hour it was a

  1095
  matter to which we could return at Report stage. I would like to make some remarks myself, but, with the leave of the Committee, I believe that they can wait.
  Amendment No. 148 is prompted directly by a suggestion made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The Committee's report on the Bill was published last month. Orders and regulations made under the Bill, other than simple commencement orders, are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Whatever we may think about that—I have not sought to propose exceptions to the provision in the main body of the Bill, despite all temptations—there is an issue to be addressed in Clause 95(2). The clause confers a power on "the appropriate Minister" to amend or repeal,
  "any enactment, instrument or document".
  I am not quite sure what significance the word "document" has here. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to enlighten us.
  But the main bone of contention is whether it is right for orders that revoke or alter anything in the Bill not to be subject to the more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny inherent in the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand from the Government that they have re-examined the issue and they may have concluded that a change of heart is warranted. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with a definitive response. I beg to move.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, indeed, the Government are happy to acknowledge that they would support the intent of the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will probably be disappointed to know that we are not particularly happy with the wording. I should say that there are dimensions in relation to the Welsh Assembly which will need further consideration, but I should be happy to talk to the noble Earl between now and Report stage and perhaps to provide him with a suitably worded amendment.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, I wonder whether there could be an explanation of the curious word, "document". Does that have some Welsh significance? I do not recollect ever having seen a clause which provided that one could amend a document; one amends legislation.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall have to inquire into that matter and discover whether there is a Welsh element to it. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
  Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 95 agreed to.
  Clause 96[General interpretation etc.]:
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 149 and 150:
  Page 57, line 33, at end insert—
  (""independent school" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996;").
  Page 58, line 2, at end insert—
  (""proprietor", in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in the Education Act I996;").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [The Commission and the Council]:
  [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 151 A:
  Page 60, line 21, at end insert ("and to be fulfilling these functions no later than 1st January 2002.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 151A is designed to elicit from the Government a commitment—at least, a statement—about when the commission will start. That is what this "stop end date", so to speak, is designed to do. There is concern among the social care association and other organisations that there is no commitment from the Government as to when the bodies mentioned in the schedule will start to function. It has been suggested that the commission will start in April 2001, but the start dates for the councils appear not to have been mentioned. Of course, the commission must be in place before the national standards are set, otherwise local authorities will have to start to interpret the standards. Both councils and commission must function as soon as possible. I beg to move.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We expect that the national care standards commission will discharge its functions from April 2002. However, the general social care council and the Welsh care council are expected to function by April 2001.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 153:
  Page 60, line 24, at end insert ("and these shall include one member who has experience and expertise in disability and special educational needs as they relate to children").
  The noble Lord said: I wish to move this amendment. Amendments at the beginning of the Bill relate to the General Teaching Council to ensure that someone on that council has experience of disability. I remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was most receptive to the view that someone on that council should have experience of disability. In the end, the Government produced an amendment which ensured that that was the case. It seems to me that this is much the same case. I believe that some of the amendments and speeches of the noble Lord, Lord

  1097
  Rix, have emphasised that there are special circumstances which affect disabled children and adults. Whenever one talks about training, one talks about other training inspectors, and so on. It seems to me that that would be reinforced if there were someone on the commission who had special experience in that area. I hope that the Government will be able to smile upon this amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to support the amendment. I hope that most of the people on the commission will have experience with disability because it is a very wide subject. There are many different disabilities and certainly at least one member should have such experience. However, it is hoped that all members will have it.
  Earl Howe: I rise briefly to support the amendment and to speak to my Amendment No. 157. With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168, which was by accident placed in the following group.
  I believe that we must all be alert to the need for the wonderful word "balance" in the composition of the commission, whose functions are to be so multifarious. The responsibilities that it will be given for children are so important as to warrant, in my judgment, a member of the commission dedicated to children's interests in all their facets. We must bear in mind the history. Between, I believe, 1948 and 1970 there were separate children's departments in local authorities under the auspices of the Home Office, led by distinguished children's officers such as the late Baroness Faithfull.
  Since 1970, when the large social services departments were set up, children's services have formed a rather small element of a giant entity. Although I do not pretend that the commission will be quite such a giant entity, we need to ensure that children's issues receive the attention which they deserve.
  There needs to be a channel through which government policy affecting the child can be assimilated by the commission and the implementation of that policy properly monitored. A children's commissioner could also have a role in promoting the rights of children, as an arbiter on complaints, and could act as a watchdog on bad practice. That is particularly pertinent when one thinks of the allegations of child abuse in North Wales.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I support Amendment No. 153 and also Amendment No. 157 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for picking up this amendment and running with it.
  In a sense, we are having a second bite at the cherry since we had some discussion on this matter earlier in our discussions on the Bill. We have heard part of the Minister's reply. Nevertheless, there is still considerable force behind these two amendments. I do
  1098
  not believe that we have yet teased out in full that the department really has an intention to have such expertise on the commission.
  We must return at a later stage to the issue of the children's commissioner. We feel very strongly that the children's rights director is not an adequate way of dealing with the rights of children. A children's commissioner would be a much more preferable way of dealing with the matter. Therefore, we continue to support that position.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Again, we return to issues which we discussed last week. I am extremely sympathetic to the intention behind the various amendments which have been dealt with in this group.
  Clearly, it is extremely important that the commission and the councils are sensitive to the needs and interests of the many different types of services which are to be covered and service users who will, in one way or another, be in a relationship with the councils and the commission through the services which are provided.
  In relation to the councils and the commission, we must take into account in particular the needs of those with disabilities or special educational needs and must recognise the importance of safeguarding the rights of children. One of the important aspects of this Bill is the requirement of the commission to appoint one of its staff as a children's rights director. I am absolutely convinced that the interests of particular groups of adult service users, such as those of disabled people, will be of equal concern to the commission's members.
  However, allotting places on the commission's membership for individual interest groups does not seem to me the best or most appropriate way to move forward. That applies also to the councils. We clearly need a balanced membership. We should expect members to be drawn from a mix of backgrounds and perspectives. But I do not believe that the appointments process should be used to make individual board members representative of specific interest groups.
  Indeed, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his place brings to mind the area health authorities established in 1974 which were a classic example of what happens when specific interests are represented on a large body. One then finds it very difficult to reach sensible, corporate decisions because of that.
  I have said—and I am sure the Committee will agree—that the appointment of members must be on the overriding principle of merit. The appointments will be made, as for all public appointments, through a process of advertisements and proper consideration of nominations. Clearly, nominations from interest groups or professional groups will be considered. But I resist the attempt to guarantee places for a specific interest on either the commission or the council.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this unduly, but the Minister used the term

  1099
  "interest groups", which in the circumstances is the most pejorative term he could use. Would not "expertise" be just as good?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, for somebody who made a living for a long time representing an interest group, I do not regard the word as pejorative. However, the point made by the noble Lord is the same relevant argument. There can be no question that in the membership we wish to have people with a broad range of expertise. I would find it difficult to accept if different backgrounds were named in the Bill which would have prior claim to places. Those who come to make the appointments need to have as much freedom as possible to ensure that they obtain the right calibre and balance of membership.
  I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeking the appointment of a children's commissioner. I have said previously that we are concerned to ensure that the issues regarding children are given a great deal of prominence by the commission. However, we believe that the appointment of a children's rights director will best serve the interests of children covered by the Bill. That appointment will be a senior position within the commission. The specific role will require a great deal of consideration and, indeed, consultation. We would expect that many members of the commission will have significant experience of children's services and related issues. However, I believe that the specific point raised by the noble Earl is best met by the appointment of a children's rights director rather than by having a specific member of the commission so identified.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 173. I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. All the councils and the commission will be concerned with raising standards of care. That will involve a variety of ways of producing information so that as many people as possible can have access to it. It will mean including people for whom English is not their main language and others with particular needs, such as disabled people and those with a learning disability. We shall direct the councils and the commission to investigate ways in which they will need to make their reports available so that they can be accessed by as many people as possible, including people with disabilities.
  I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, transferred Amendment No. 158—
  Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps it will assist the Minister if I say that, although I intended to speak more fully to that amendment, I did not do so. If he would care to pass it over, I should understand perfectly. Perhaps we can revert to it at a later stage.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I thought he had referred to Amendment No. 158 which relates to the question of a medical practitioner.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may say in response to the Minister's remarks that I have a
  1100
  different recollection of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I remember moving, as an exception to the rule that people should be appointed on merit, that where trusts have a teaching hospital, they should have a representative of the university. I recollect all the way through those debates the then government resisting firmly the idea of people being appointed to represent particular interests.
  But the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had it right. We are looking for a balance of expertise. It would be strange if there was nobody on the commission with experience of the field of disability. That is all we are asking for. However, the Minister has said what he has. We should not pursue the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 154:
  Page 60, line 24, at end insert ("and a majority of the Commission members shall be lay people").
  The noble Lord said: I shall move Amendment No. 154 and my noble friend Lady Barker will speak to Amendment No. 159.
  This is not the right time of day to enter into a debate, but this is a continuation of the discussions in relation to the composition of the commission. There is a strong view that a majority of the members of the commission should be lay people. The Minister will no doubt recall that we spent many happy hours discussing similar matters in the health Bill last year.
  There is a good case for the commission to have a lay majority. It should be in touch with the needs of service users. This is the same situation as when we argued for a lay majority on NICE—a special health authority—during the course of the debates on the health Bill. There may also be a case for a lay majority on the English and Welsh councils which are to be set up. We do not agree in any event that the councils should have a professional majority and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be proposing an amendment to that effect.
  However, it is not the time to debate that issue now. Perhaps we can return to a more comprehensive debate about the composition of the commission in due course. I beg to move.
  Earl Howe: At this juncture I propose to take my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I shall not be moving the amendments in my name in this group tonight.
  Baroness Barker: I want briefly to discuss Amendment No. 159. In so doing, even at this late hour, I want to note the appointment of Evelyn Rank Petruzzietto, the first person with learning disabilities to be appointed to the Disability Rights Commission.
  First, I want to congratulate the Government on making that appointment. Secondly, I want to congratulate her; thirdly, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and all those who have worked for so long for the rights of people with learning disabilities to take part in our society. That is worth

  1101
  celebrating, even just for a moment. Like other noble Lords, I do not propose to talk at length about the amendments in this group.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: I agree with the Minister in that there should be flexibility. I do not agree with Amendment No. 155, which proposes that the majority should be qualified social workers. The country still has a lot of fear of social services. I should like to leave the choice flexible and based on merit.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I need only respond to Amendment No. 154. The Government believe that it makes sense that lay members should form the majority of the membership of the commission. It is our intention that both the commission and the council will have a majority of lay members.
  Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that I was complimenting him on the changes he made to the composition of area health authorities and district health authorities because they made those institutions more corporate and less representative.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that extremely positive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 155 to 159 not moved.]
  11.15 p.m.
  Earl Howe Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 160.
  Page 60, line 39, at end insert—
  ("(6A.—(1 ) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision as to—

  (a) the appointment of and constitution of a committee of an authority to exercise its functions under this Act in relation to independent hospitals and independent clinics;

  (b) the appointment of a chairman and other members of that committee (which may include persons who are not members of the authority) save that the committee shall comprise not less than 5 persons including the chairman appointed pursuant to this paragraph and the chief officer of the committee appointed pursuant to paragraph 8;

  (c) the tenure of office of the chairman and other members of that committee (including the circumstances in which they cease to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office);

  (d) the appointment of, constitution of and exercise of functions by sub-committees of that committee (including sub-committees which consist of or include persons who are not members of the authority);

  (e) the procedure of the committee and of any sub-committees of it (including the validation of proceedings in the event of vacancies or defects in appointment).

  (2) The chairman and chief officer of the committee constituted under this preceding paragraph—

  (a) shall be members of the authority;

  (b) shall be persons other than the chairman and chief officer of the authority.")

  The noble Earl said: We come now to Amendments Nos. 160 to 166 which constitute for me perhaps one of the most important groups of this Committee stage. I shall try to be as brief as I can.
  When I first read the Bill and saw how the Government proposed to regulate the private healthcare sector, I cannot pretend that I was particularly enthused. In a Bill devoted principally to the regulation of personal care, social care and care workers, the addition of independent healthcare to the responsibilities of the national care standards commission seemed a serious anomaly; indeed, it almost has the look of a last-minute "bolt-on" extra. I do not believe that I was by any means alone in that reaction. The Government had led us to believe that private healthcare would be regulated by a body completely separate from the regulator or social care. That original proposal at least had the merit of logic to it, as well as the merit of treating the private healthcare sector as a wholly different animal from social care, which indeed it is.
  However, when the announcement came, we learnt that there was to be no separate regulator. Further, we now understand from the Minister that one of the key assurances given to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, during the passage of the Health Act is not to be honoured either. I refer to the undertaking that she gave that the Government were open minded to the possibility that the regulator of private healthcare might wish to contract with another body, such as the Commission for Health Improvement, in order to help carry out local inspections. We now learn that that possibility, which for many of us held considerable appeal, is no longer on the agenda. The Minister's assurance was undoubtedly one of the factors that influenced me in my decision not to divide the House a second time on the issue of the remit of CHI. Therefore, to put it at its mildest, what we have now been told is extraordinarily disappointing.
  While it would have been possible to propose a raft of amendments setting up a separate private healthcare regulator, I have chosen instead to deal with the Bill as we find it. I have done so because I believe that there is a way of making the Government's proposals into something that is meaningful and that will work. The amendments that we are now considering attempt to give substance to the idea that the Government have indicated is their intention; namely, to give responsibility for the regulation of private healthcare to a separate division within the national care standards commission.
  What form should that division take? I am proposing that it should be a separate and distinct committee of the authority which would be granted clear delegated functions with a clear framework of accountability. It would be responsible to the authority for all that it did but would essentially comprise an administrative structure, complete with a chairman, chief officer and dedicated staff whose sole remit would be the supervision and inspection of independent hospitals and clinics.
  I would envisage, too, that this division of the commission would be required to produce its own annual report and accounts to ensure full transparency of its operations and the cost of such operations. The amendments that I propose set out de minimis requirements beyond which government and the commission would retain considerable scope for manoeuvre. I think it would be fair to say that the independent healthcare industry's support for the proposed commission is largely contingent on a clear and transparent divisional structure for healthcare regulation. That focus is undoubtedly required because of the technical complexity and diversity of the issues that the division will have to address. Therefore, this set of amendments is designed to ensure that the regulation of healthcare is given sufficient weight within the commission and that it is both competent and transparent.
  Unless the otherwise rather nebulous concept of a "division" is given real substance and unless the cultural divide between private healthcare and social care is recognised in a tangible way, we are in danger of creating a regulator of private hospitals that is less than credible. That should be avoided at all costs. I very much hope that the Government can see their way to support this set of amendments, at least in principle. I believe that such support would give considerable comfort to a wide array of people and organisations with diverse interests in this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to express my support for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this amendment. Indeed, our only quarrel with it is that it does not go far enough. We debated the issue of the remit of the Commission for Health Improvement and we certainly believe that that would ultimately be the best solution. However, pending that, or if that is not possible, clearly clarification is needed from the Government regarding their intentions on this separate division. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it is certainly unclear at this stage how that will operate in relation to the commission's regulatory role. There are important cultural differences between health and social services. They have different accountability mechanisms, different management systems, training requirements and budgetary arrangements. Therefore clarification is certainly needed as to exactly how that division will operate.
  Will the national care standards commission have a separate board to oversee its functions? If so, how will that be composed? Will there be medical representation on that hoard, for instance? How will its members be constituted? How will this separate division be accountable to the chairman and board members of the commission? The cost of setting up the commission will, of course, be met by the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly. However, once the commission is up and running it is unclear how the funding streams for the social care
  1104
  and the independent healthcare sectors will operate. How will that relate to the separate division which the department intends to set up in this respect?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that we ought not to go over the ground as to why private and voluntary healthcare is to be regulated within one national commission. As the Committee will know, the original intention was to have a separate regulator for the private healthcare sector but that was to run alongside the proposed eight regional care commissions. We decided that that was not the right way forward because we believe that consistency of approach throughout the country in relation to regulation is important. In bringing the proposed eight regional care commissions into one care commission it was then much more appropriate to include within those arrangements the private and voluntary healthcare sectors, which is what is contained in the Bill.
  I have no disagreement with the contention that within the national care standards commission there has to be a high focus of expertise in relation to healthcare regulation. For that reason we intend that there should be a separate division of the commission to take forward that work. But where I part company with Members of the Committee opposite is as regards the suggestion in the amendment that there should be established a statutory committee within the national care standards commission to oversee the regulation of private and voluntary healthcare. The intention appears to be to establish a separate regulatory body for healthcare within the main commission with a status equal to that of the commission itself, with members appointed by the Secretary of State and with the right to establish its own independent committees and sub-committees. Obviously the details of this are probably not at all clear but I question whether that kind of structure is really workable within one corporate organisation.
  I do not believe that it is necessary to go that far and to establish those kind of arrangements because, as I have said, we shall have a clearly identified division of the commission to handle regulation of private and voluntary healthcare. I believe that such a division will enable the commission as a whole to ensure that it has a proper focus on private healthcare matters, and that it will be able to have high calibre staff to advise on and operate the regulation of the private healthcare sector. I believe that that is the best approach. I also point out that the commission already has the power in the Bill to establish committees and sub-committees to help it carry out its work. There would be nothing to prevent the commission setting up a committee to look at, and be responsible for, issues in relation to private healthcare regulation. The commission being able to set up a committee is a very different matter from the proposal in the amendment to establish a statutory committee. That would make the relationship between the commission and the committee very difficult to manage.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: If it has done nothing else, the Committee stage of the Bill has exposed—I say this

  1105
  in all charitableness to the Minister—the hollowness of the Government's arguments for their change of heart and for deciding not to have a separate regulator for private and independent healthcare. I have no doubt that between now and the Report stage, we on this side of the House—I hope I can include the Liberal Democrats in this—must come up with an amendment or a new clause which will fulfil what has clearly been the view expressed from almost all parts of the House: that the private and independent hospital service requires a completely different approach.
  It seems quite absurd that all the subjects we have been discussing about vulnerable adults, children, homes, child-minders and so on, should also take into account hospitals such as the King Edward VII, the Sister Agnes and the St John of God in Yorkshire, a wonderful voluntary hospital. I cannot believe that a sensible way of proceeding is for the high quality medicine which is practised in such hospitals to come under the same regime.
  When we come to the later stages of the Bill, this House will want to send it on to the other place with a more sensible structure, perhaps with the CHI having extended terms of reference, or perhaps even with a separate regulator. With the greatest respect to the Government, that cannot be right.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, used the word "hollowness". I found the Minister's response extremely vague when set against the concrete nature of the amendment. II was difficult to discern precisely what kind of mechanism is intended for the running of the division. I do not think I received any particular answer to any of the questions that I posed about accountability, mechanisms, management systems and so on. I am sorry that the debate is taking place so late at night.
  It all goes to show that the regulation of independent healthcare in the Bill is just an add-on; it has been bolted on. It is not coherent and should not be a part of the Bill.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: We should protect all patients. I am sure that many on the Cross-Benches will support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at Report stage. There should be minimum clinical standards in whatever hospital.
  Lord Howe: Like my noble friend Lord Jenkin and other noble Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's response. He said that the proposal outlined in the amendment was not workable. I am not sure that he gave many reasons for that. It seems to me that there is every reason to think that a delegated structure would work. I see no reason why it should not.
  The Minister failed to put any flesh on the bones as far as concerns the proposed separate division. He did not make clear what form the division will take; what the division will amount to; what the structure will be; who will run it, and so on.
  1106
  I share the verdict of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the Minister's response. We must come back to this issue at a later stage because it is too important to let drop. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 161 to 170A not moved.]
  1.30 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 62. line 15, at end insert—
  ("Training
  13A. The Commission may provide training for the purpose of assisting persons to attain standards set out in any statements published by the Secretary of State under section 21.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 172:
  Page 62, line 19, at end insert—
  ("Fees
  14A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, charge a fee in connection with the exercise of any power conferred on it by or under this Act.
  (2) The Commission may charge a reasonable fee determined by it—

  (a) for any advice, forms or documents provided for the assistance of a person who proposes to apply, or is considering whether to apply, for registration under Part II; and

  (b) for any training provided by it under paragraph 13.A.

  (3) The consent of the Secretary of State for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) may be given in relation to the exercise of a power either generally or in a particular case.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Child Minding and Day Care for Young Children]:
  [Amendments Nos. 173A and 173B not moved.]
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 174:
  Page 69, line 28, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 174, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 175 to 177. These four amendments are simply to change the shorthand term used in the Children Act, as amended by the Bill, to refer to the national care standards commission and the National Assembly for Wales. The term "registration authority" is potentially confusing as it could conflict with the new Part XA of the Children Act, as inserted by Part V of this Bill, which also uses the term "registration authority". There is no change of any meaning or substance as a result of these amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 177:
  Page 69, line 30, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
  Page 69, line 36, leave out (""registration") and insert ("appropriate").
  Page 70, line 12, leave out ("""registration") and insert ("""appropriate").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 178:
  Page 74, line 16, column 3, leave out ("and (2) to") and insert (", (2)(a) to (k), (3) and").
  The noble Lord said: This is a minor correction to the repeals schedule. We are making a number of repeals of existing provisions made under the Children
  1108
  Act. This amendment is intended to ensure that we do not repeal by mistake the power to make regulations under that Act which would require private children's homes to have a complaints procedure similar to that of local authorities under Section 26 of that Act. That power has been exercised in respect of private children's homes in the Representations Procedure (Children) Regulations 1991 and this amendment is necessary to ensure that those provisions remain in force as respects these homes.
  The Bill will require all children's homes to have adequate complaints procedures within the home itself. But aside from that we want also to ensure that the statutory Children Act complaints procedure applies to private children's homes. This amendment will ensure that that remains so. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Saudi Arabia: Nuclear Weapons Policy
  Saudi Arabia: Nuclear Weapons Policy
  Health Pay Review Bodies' Recommendations
  Health Pay Review Bodies' Recommendations
  Hedgerow Protection
  Hedgerow Protection
  Withholding Tax
  Withholding Tax
  Unemployment: Statistical Breakdown
  Unemployment: Statistical Breakdown