Sitting of 29 June 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Wednesday 5 July at Seven o'clock.
MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second Time on Thursday 6 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Derek Twigg: What plans he has for reform of the common agricultural policy arable regime. [127030]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): As part of the Agenda 2000 agreement we achieved a substantial narrowing of the gap between European Union and world prices. We also secured a further review of price levels in 2002 and will use this opportunity to further our reform agenda. Arable area payments account for one third of CAP expenditure in the United Kingdom and will amount to about £1 billion this year.
  Mr. Twigg: Is there not a better way to use the £1 billion that subsidises large arable farm businesses? The savings being made could be used to conserve the countryside and support business plans to return small farms to profitability.
  Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to talk in terms of a new direction for agricultural policy, which is precisely what the Government are seeking to bring about through their use of the rural development regulation and in their reform agenda throughout the European Union.
  Mr. James Paice: In the common agricultural policy debate on 11 May the Minister said that he was disappointed that there was no cut in the sugar price, and that the case for the cut was
  1026
  strong, because the support was increasingly out of line with that for other crops. Does he not realise that with a harvest price of £60 a tonne for wheat and barley this year, no farmers will make a profit? He is giving the clear impression that the only justification for cutting the sugar price is that because farmers cannot make a profit on any other crop, they should not make one on sugar beet either. What reasons does the Minister have for seeking a cut in the sugar price when sugar is about the only arable crop left that is making any profit whatever?
  Ms Quin: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman ask that question, because I am sure that he knows the answer. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly pointed out the difference between some of the prices for arable products, particularly wheat, and the price for sugar, which is about four times the world price. We know that the European Commission is making proposals for changes to the sugar regime, so we need to look at them and act consistently with our drive for agricultural reform in general. The hon. Gentleman should also take into account the fact that many of our food processing industries are damaged by the artificially high EU price for sugar. It is the Government's duty to consider everyone who is affected by the EU regime and find a sensible way forward. We shall certainly consult all parts of the sugar industry, but we are concerned about our responsibilities to consumers and the British economy generally.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): What response he has had to his consultation on separation distances for GM crops. [127031]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Lead responsibility for different aspects of policy on genetically modified crops falls to different Ministers. My responsibilities in this area cover seed purity, agronomic practice and agricultural production, and the implications, other than food safety implications, for different sectors of the food chain.
  My hon. Friend asked about the review of separation distances, for which I have lead responsibility. As of this morning, 12 individual responses to the review have been received, expressing a range of views. The deadline for responses is 10 July.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and for his timely consultation. Will he ensure that account is taken of the research into low frequency and high magnitude weather events which transport much larger quantities of pollen over much greater distances? Does he agree that he must take account of that factor as the consultation runs its course? Does he further agree that separation distances to protect seed purity need to be negotiated internationally?
  Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on the last point, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to get things right here. That is precisely

  1027
  the purpose of the consultation exercise on which we have embarked. I will take what she says about the variations in climatic conditions as representations to the review.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Has the Minister visited America or sent any officials to look at separation distances there, where GM crops have been grown commercially in substantial quantities for more than 10 years?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, I have visited the United States and discussed these matters with my counterparts there on a number of occasions. As I think I have already informed the House, I have also sent an official to Canada to liaise with the Canadian authorities over the latest incident involving the contamination of crops with genetically modified seeds in oilseed rape.
  Ms Julia Drown: Separation distances are also important for small-scale test sites. Has my right hon. Friend had any representations about them? I raise this matter because the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has no information on small-scale test sites as it does for farm-scale trials. Will he consider making representations to the DETR so that farmers and consumers alike can know where all test sites, whether large or small, are?
  Mr. Brown: That is an important point; it is necessary to protect the interests of small farmers as well as those of large farmers. My hon. Friend is right to make the point. Officials in MAFF are working closely with officials in the DETR on the review, but the review is being conducted primarily to give security for reasons of agricultural production.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: On 8 June, the Minister told Parliament, as recorded in column 502 of Hansard, that he had put the minutes of the early meetings—I emphasise the plural—with Advanta in the public domain. As of last night—almost three weeks later—the Library had received a minute only of the meeting of 17 April. Why has the Library not received other minutes? Last month, the Minister told the House that his officials had been in continuous contact with the company. Why will he not come clean and tell the House what advice his officials gave Advanta and when they gave it? Above all, will he tell us why no warning was given to farmers, such as those in Scotland, who were still planting GM-contaminated seed after MAFF knew that contamination was possible?
  Mr. Brown: As I carefully explained in my initial response, responsibility for GM issues is shared among several Ministers; I am not the Minister with responsibility for co-ordinating Government policy on the matter. I gave the House an assurance that a note of the meeting of 17 April would be put in the Library; that has been done. What I cannot do—as the hon. Gentleman is well aware—is to share more generally the policy advice given to Ministers.
  Mr. Yeo: In the debate organised by the Opposition on 8 June, the Minister confirmed to the House that
  I can put the minutes of the early meetings in the public domain—I understand that there is no reason why I should not; therefore I shall do so, as I want to be candid.—[Official Report, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 502.]
  The Minister is reneging on that assurance. Having told the House that the information would be in the public domain, he refuses to put it there. The conclusion drawn by the farmers whose businesses have been damaged, by the company, which is apparently liable for damages, and by the general public, will be that he has much to hide. This smacks of a ministerial cover-up. The House and the public deserve to know what advice was given to the company and when that advice was given. The longer the Minister fails to provide that information, the more his actions directly destroy confidence in the whole technology.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents what was said in the debate. Earlier, I was careful to qualify what I said. If he reads back a few paragraphs, he will see that—in response, I think, to something said by one of his hon. Friends—I was careful to qualify what I said. The information that I promised is in the Library, where the hon. Gentleman can go and see it—now, if he would like.

  Animal Welfare (World Trade Organisation)
  Mr. Brian White: What plans he has to raise animal welfare issues with the World Trade Organisation. [127032]
  Ms Joan Ryan: What representations he has received concerning animal welfare in the next round of World Trade Organisation negotiations. [127041]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The European Union has made a commitment to taking forward the issue of farm animal welfare in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. The UK has been a strong supporter of that commitment, which was reinforced by the Prime Minister in his strategy for agriculture, published on 30 March. We will certainly pursue the issue in the negotiations on agriculture that have started.
  Mr. White: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. In my constituency, many farmers are quite happy with the current standards of animal welfare. However, they are concerned about imports of animals from places where standards are lower. Will she give an assurance that she will ensure that farmers in my constituency do not lose out under any liberalisation as a result of the WTO negotiations?
  Ms Quin: I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. In the Ministry, we have held several meetings with interested parties throughout the farming industry about how best to pursue the important subject of animal welfare in world trade negotiations. I am glad that the EU is addressing the issue more seriously than it

  1029
  has in the past, and that we can secure, in the official EU mandate governing the negotiations, a specific reference to animal welfare.
  Ms Ryan: May I lend my support to that of Compassion in World Farming for the idea of making payments for high animal welfare standards eligible for green box treatment in the World Trade Organisation? That is the best way to move ahead in liberalising trade in agricultural products while preserving high animal welfare standards in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend raise that matter during the World Trade Organisation negotiations?
  Ms Quin: The suggestion that we should get payments authorised within the so-called green box is an interesting idea that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has put forward. It was also explored with me when I recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture. Obviously, we want recognition of animal welfare standards. However, we want them recognised in a way that will fit in with the WTO, that is not subject to cuts in support, as under the blue box arrangement, and that will allow us to move forward in a way that does not distort trade. The negotiations will be difficult and we shall need to build up alliances for the position that we are taking.
  Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon):I welcome the Minister's extremely cautious response, given that the action plan for farming covered that commitment in a single brief sentence. Does she accept that the achievement of the rules-based system to discipline world trade is one of the great achievements of the post-war world? One of the reasons why it has been so successful is that it has dealt with trade, while people have found other forums to deal with issues such as the environment and labour conditions. Does she recognise that if we are to continue to succeed in promoting world trade, we must not hang too many other issues on the trade issue, because they can be dealt with in other forums. Will she therefore persist with her extreme caution and realise that what is at stake is very important?
  Ms Quin: I understand some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises, but I hope that he will not confuse caution with a lack of determination to pursue the issue. As I mentioned, this is part of the European Union mandate. However, we have a responsibility to explain to other countries why we feel the issue is important, and that we are not pursuing it in a protectionist way. I accept his comments about world trade, but I am encouraged that there now appears to be a greater understanding of the issue. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recently attended an animal welfare congress that discussed world trade, and it welcomed the view that this issue should be seen as a dimension of world trade.
  Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): I am sure that the House recognises that some hon. Members hold strong views on animal welfare, and set greater store by that than by the viability of British agriculture. Will the Minister assure us that that is not her priority, and that the
  1030
  Government will do nothing to detract from the competitive position of British agriculture by introducing unilaterally any further welfare measures?
  Ms Quin: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that our animal welfare measures have been introduced with the support of the whole House? Members on both sides have spoken up strongly in favour of animal welfare. However, it is important to pursue these issues, particularly within the European market. With laying hens, for example, it is much better to take action at a European level than to introduce unilateral measures that simply damage competitiveness and encourage imports from places where standards are not so high.
  Mr. Colin Breed: Taking that point forward, the Minister will know that the competition faced by British pig producers is from lower-grade competitors from within Europe rather than outside it. What action is she taking, and what discussions is she having with our European partners so that they will follow our good example in animal welfare and improve their standards? We would not then face unfair competition much longer.
  Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have actively pursued that aim in Europe. Indeed, there are some moves to improve welfare standards in European pig production. We have also supported marketing and promotional efforts which, importantly, highlight the high standards that we have introduced in this country. Of course, we are glad that the price for pigmeat has increased in recent weeks.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Ian Bruce: What action his Department is taking to assist farmers who are affected by the fall in the value of the euro. [127033]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government have undertaken a range of measures to help farmers through what I freely acknowledge are difficult times. Farm incomes have been depressed for the last three years. On the specific question of the euro's fall in value, the principal instrument that the Government can use is agrimonetary compensation. Up to the end of 2001, we will have paid some £595 million in agrimonetary compensation, which is broken down as follows: £22 million will have gone to dairy producers, £235.4 million to beef producers, £82.4 million to sheep producers, and £254.9 million to arable producers. Small amounts are also paid to farmers under agri-environmental schemes.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that full answer, which contrasts with many answers that we currently receive from the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that the saving to Her Majesty's Government in agrimonetary compensation is £110 million, despite all the money that has gone into it? More importantly, will he take the Chancellor by the hand—if one can do that—and get him to go to the European central bankers and protest about the fact that our European partners are deliberately devaluing the euro to give themselves a competitive

  1031
  advantage, and are not sorting out their own economies? Our farmers may be the most efficient in the world, but that is unfair competition.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that macro-economic policy has an impact on agriculture, as Ministers have previously acknowledged in the House. We can only make so much use of the instrument of agrimonetary compensation. The Government are making proportionate use of it, but it is wrong to encourage British agriculture to look to supply side measures as a solution to their problems. The solution must be closer market orientation.
  Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands): My local farmers have been helped by the countryside stewardship scheme. However, have the Government not been hampered in their efforts by the previous Government's neglect of the rural environment, which has led to a low allocation of EU funds for environmental development?
  Mr. Brown: Although I secured a 30 per cent. increase in the funds made available to this country from central European funds, I was handicapped by the low starting point in the negotiating base that I inherited from the previous Government, which means that we still do not get what I believe is our fair share of central European funds for these measures. I set great store by the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, and believe that we shall make more, not less, use of it in future.
  Mr. William Thompson: When the traditional arrangements run out, will agricultural compensation cease completely? If the differential between the euro and the pound continues, will the Minister seek to make new arrangements?
  Mr. Brown: I was in Northern Ireland yesterday, and met, I believe, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and had a good exchange with them on a range of issues. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the future of the agrimonetary compensation scheme, as other member states of the European Union will not have such a close interest in it in future, as they move to the single currency. No final decision has yet been made about the future of the agrimonetary regime once the two years that it still has to run have elapsed.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter now. The long-term future of agriculture lies not in supply side measures from the EU or the UK Government, but in a liberalised world market, in which the industry can earn its living in the marketplace.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ben Chapman: What his Department's planned expenditure is on research and development into organic farming methods in the current financial year. [127035]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The budget for MAFF's dedicated programme of research into organic farming methods is £2.1 million in this financial year. In addition to the annual funding of research, the Government have committed from central
  1032
  funds an increase of £300,000 in this financial year and £1.9 million in the next financial year to create a new European centre for organic fruit and nursery stock. MAFF also spends £8 million on biological control, which of course has implications for the organic sector.
  Mr. Chapman: I welcome those figures, but does my hon. Friend agree that the ability to buy organic vegetables is a choice that consumers may increasingly want? Against that background, does he welcome the decision by the Iceland chain of shops to purchase, reputedly, 40 per cent. of the world's crop and make it available to consumers at prices similar to those of other vegetables? Does he believe that the increased demand for organic vegetables will be met by UK farmers or by imports, and is he satisfied that the money for conversion to organics will be sufficient to meet that demand?
  Mr. Morley: The Government have substantially increased the money available for organic conversion, including doubling the conversion rate. We have made some £12 million available for this financial year, and a further £18 million is available for the next financial year. Clearly, Iceland has made its decision based on market conditions, but that demonstrates that there is a strong demand for organic produce in this country, and although a great deal of fruit and vegetable produce is imported, we are almost 100 per cent. self-sufficient in some sectors, such as meat and eggs.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Does the Minister agree that the success of the organic market is dependent on the purity of the product, as perceived by the consumer and by the Soil Association? How does he reconcile that with the comments on GM crops by his colleague, Baroness Hayman, who said to the Agriculture Committee:
  the organic movement has to recognise and find a way of living with contamination from other crops?
  Does not that destroy the very purity that the organic sector is attempting to market?
  Mr. Morley: No, it does not. The issue at stake is thresholds. Although we are discussing with the organic sector how to tackle matters such as crop trials and separation distances, organic producers cannot at present guarantee that there is no spray drift from pesticides used in adjacent farming activities, so the issue is the acceptable threshold. Thresholds have to be kept to a minimum, while ensuring the purity of the organic food by keeping spray drift to negligible amounts.

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): If he will make a statement about the current level of farmgate milk prices. [127037]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government recognise the considerable problems currently facing the dairy industry. A combination of factors have reduced milk prices and

  1033
  had a consequential effect on incomes in the sector over the past two years. The farmgate price for milk in April 2000 was 15.25p per litre.
  Mr. Robertson: The Minister mentions that several factors have affected milk prices, and those include the weak euro and the recent depressed prices of skimmed milk and butter. A third factor is structural problems. Does the Minister now regret encouraging the break-up of Milk Marque, and if so, will he explain what he will do to put the situation right?
  Mr. Brown: Of course I did not encourage the break-up of Milk Marque; it resulted from an independent report by the competition authorities—the sole ministerial responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that the Government of the day, regardless of party, should put the views of the competition authorities to one side, I have to say that I completely reject that view. The board of Milk Marque responded very responsibly to the difficult situation in which it found itself; it has devised successor arrangements that will endure, and it has my support in that. Where the Government can provide support to the dairy industry we are doing so, as the Prime Minister's farming summit has shown.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the producers of the very good TV commercial that promotes milk, using well known milk drinkers such as George Best? Has he made any assessment of how that will help farmers by affecting farmgate prices?
  Mr. Brown: I was wondering whether my hon. Friend was about to invite me to take part in the campaign on the same basis. I support the generic promotion of milk, and think that it is a way forward for producers.
  Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I also support generic milk marketing. I hope that it will increase the overall volume of milk sold, but increasing the volume will not help the primary producers if the margin at the farm gate is still too small for them to be viable. Is not it important that yet again, we tell the processors and the supermarkets that the health of the whole dairy industry depends on farmers getting a fair return for their milk, and do we not need a joint approach by the Ministry, the processors, the retail trade and the farmers themselves?
  Mr. Brown: The whole supply chain has a vested interest in the health of its component parts. I make that point to everyone involved every time I meet them, but I cannot order people to adjust the commercial arrangements in the chain, because that is ultimately a matter for the private sector, not for Government.

  Wheat Prices
  Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): If he will make a statement on the price of wheat in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) currently. [R][127109]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The average price of UK wheat in 1980 was £105 per tonne, rising to £120 per tonne in 1990. It is currently about £80 per tonne. However, in real terms, adjusting for inflation, the price of wheat has declined overall on a constant basis since 1980. Low prices for grain currently apply throughout the world, and are largely the result of oversupply following a run of good harvests and a downturn in consumption caused by the recent financial turbulence in Asia.
  Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister of State agree that those figures are desperate, and are reflected in farm incomes? Is she aware that the Ministry's statistics show that the income of cereal farmers has gone down by 72 per cent. since the Government took office, and that many believe that farming today is in its worst state since the second world war—probably worse than the 1930s? Ministers may be sympathetic, but if that continues there will soon not be much left of British farming. Against that background, should Ministers not do all they can to help British agriculture? Could not they make a good start by looking at the workings of the Intervention Board, because reform of that would help to give British farmers a better deal?
  Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that we have given only sympathy to British agriculture. The results of the farming summit on 30 March and the previous packages of support that the Government announced show that we have given practical and financial assistance to agriculture, as well as sympathy. Although it is true that wheat prices are lower than they were years ago, they are now much closer to world prices. In our new direction for agriculture, we want to reduce the artificial difference between European and world prices and to support agriculture differently. The amount of public money that goes into the cereals is considerable; as I announced in reply to an earlier question, it is about £1 billion a year.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): In view of the reductions in subsidies as a result of the World Trade Organisation arrangements over the next two to three years, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we are fully prepared for the changes that have to take place to ensure that the industry can survive in this country?
  s Quin: The Government are fully preparing for the pressures that will affect European agriculture in the next few years. My hon. Friend is right to mention the pressures caused by the WTO, but there are also budgetary pressures in the EU—and, of course, the important matter of enlarging the EU to take in new member countries.
  Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Having regard to enlargement and the next round of WTO negotiations, what message can the Minister of State give wheat growers to show that they will have a future in the United Kingdom?
  Ms Quin: We believe that our growers, and indeed our agriculture generally, are in a position to be good competitive performers in the EU. I believe that if we

  1035
  manage to move further away from the production-related subsidies of the past and ensure that those decisions are applied uniformly across Europe, British agriculture will be in a good position to compete.

  IACS Payments
  Ms Sally Keeble: What progress he has made towards ensuring that field margins are eligible for area"based integrated administration and control system payments. [127038]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We were pleased to secure the European Commission's agreement that, for the current year, we should continue to apply the rules on field margins in the same way as we have in previous years. For 2001 and subsequent years, we continue to explore with the Commission the options for achieving the objective to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Ms Keeble: I welcome the progress that has been made. Farmers in Northamptonshire have in some cases lost thousands of pounds on the issue, and they are also concerned about the loss of hedgerows, wildlife and traditional countryside features. However, may I ask my hon. Friend to look at two particular things: ensuring that there is proper flexibility, so that field margins allow for the varying width of hedgerows and are not too fixed; and ensuring that there is speed in making progress. Farmers will start planting their first crops in August. They want to be sure that progress will continue to be made, so that they will know where they stand on their subsidies next year.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. We appreciate that there is a deadline on the issue because farmers will have to take decisions on their autumn planting regime. However, farmers should not have lost money on the issue. The ideal will be to persuade the Commission to accept the current situation, whereby we apply traditional cropping methods in terms of the arable area payment claims. There are a number of ways of addressing that. We are exploring all those options with the Commission and hope for a speedy resolution.
  Mr. James Gray: It was tragic and heart-breaking to see the bonfires all over North Wiltshire as a result of the introduction of the 2-metre IACS rule last year. Farmers acted swiftly, taking note of what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was saying, but it was tragic to see the destruction of historic hedgerows as a result. Perhaps the Minister will kindly advise the House precisely which Minister proposed the 2-metre IACS rule, which caused that destruction.
  Mr. Morley: We have received no reports from our regional service centres of bonfires all over the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Was he referring to 5 November by any chance? The proposal has not come from any Minister. It has come from auditors and accountants from the European Commission. They are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that funds are paid on the area of land that is actually eligible for them. We understand that point. The point that we want to get over to the Commission is that we had original agreement that payments would
  1036
  reflect traditional cropping patterns in this country. That meant reflecting, in some cases, traditional field boundaries, which we are anxious to maintain and, indeed, to enhance if we have the opportunity to do so.

  Hill Farmers
  Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): What proportion of subsidy paid under the common agricultural policy to UK agriculture goes to hill farmers. [127039]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Provisional figures for 1999 show that common agricultural policy subsides paid in the UK totalled some £2,851 million. Hill farmers received 25 per cent. of that in livestock subsides alone. In addition, hill farmers received various other payments such as those for agri-environmental schemes.
  Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that hill farmers have suffered a triple whammy: the total mismanagement of the BSE crisis by the previous Government, the general depression in livestock prices and, now, the absolutely correct emphasis on the role of hill farmers in the leisure and environmental management of the countryside in future? Will he ensure, as he moves further through the reform of the CAP, that the important and specific role of hill farmers, as represented by the 25 per cent., continues to be recognised as they move in the direction of countryside management?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the combination of factors that has made life particularly difficult for hill farmers and to say that it is important, when considering reform and what publicly funded support schemes should be put in place, that we consider the environmental and landscape roles of hill farmers, not focusing solely on agricultural production.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has no plans further to reduce support for hill farmers until their average incomes, currently standing at a meagre £2,000 a year, have recovered to an adequate level; and will he tell us what he thinks is an adequate level?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as my policy is to help each hill farm business to reach better—sustainably better—times; that is the Government's policy. Can I give him an assurance that no one's income will ever go down as a result of necessary changes that are now under consideration? No, of course I cannot. However, for the range of reasons, I have just explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) we have devised policies to get hill farm businesses through to better times.
  Mr. Bercow: What level of income?
  Mr. Brown: The decision on what level of income is appropriate is for the person running the business, not for the Government.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Will the Minister tell the House what preliminary views his

  1037
  Department have fed into the sheepmeat review currently being undertaken by the European Commission? He will know both that consultation is under way and that sheep annual premium is extremely important to hill farmers. We must sustain the current level of premium at all costs.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point, although it is early days yet. I have discussed with the Agriculture Minister for Wales and other territorial Ministers our joint approach to the forthcoming review. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I do not want to set out our negotiating position now, but I assure him that I am alert to the fact that if the review is conducted in isolation from reviews of other regimes, the outcome might be different from that which would have emerged had the views of the British Government carried the day originally and the review been conducted alongside other reviews under Agenda 2000. I greatly regret that it was not, and that fact conditions my thinking about the whole process.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the superb initiative to bring together producers, auction marts and other processors in the Bowland Forest foods initiative, which points the way to the future of agricultural production, especially in hill areas. Can he assure me of the Government's utmost support for such initiatives?
  Mr. Brown: I recently had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency and seeing for myself the work going on there. Such initiatives have my Department's support.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Minister agree that it is extremely helpful to hill farmers to have easy access to small abattoirs, which, as we all know, currently suffer under considerable cost burdens? When asked his opinion of the Meat Hygiene Service, the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency said that it was
  an outdated system, one which provides little protection to consumers while placing considerable burdens on businesses.
  Does the recommendation of the Maclean report to introduce a new formula for meat inspection charges find acceptance with the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that "ingenious proposal"—the words of the FSA chief executive—may avert the annihilation of small and medium-sized abattoirs, and so give support to hill farmers?
  Mr. Brown: There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says, although were I to set out to close down as many abattoirs as were closed down under the previous Government, I could not do so, because there are not that many left. However, he is right to ask whether the Government support the change to a hazard analysis critical control point system, or HACCP system, from the current system of veterinary inspections. We are taking that issue forward with other EU Ministers. On the related question of charges, as the House will know, since 1 April that has not been my direct ministerial responsibility, although I retain an interest because of my industry sponsorship. That question is now being examined by the FSA, which has the lead role, and myself.

  Arable Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): If he will expand and make permanent the arable stewardship scheme in Shropshire and Staffordshire. [127040]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The arable stewardship scheme is a three-year pilot scheme that has been operating in two areas of the west midlands and East Anglia. Before deciding whether to make the scheme permanent and expand it, we need to see the results of the three-year monitoring and evaluation study of the options that we are testing in the two pilot areas. The results are due in spring 2001.
  Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I do not recall such a scheme being introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Is my hon. Friend aware of how phenomenally popular the scheme is proving to be in Shropshire and Staffordshire, as evidenced by the representations that I have received from individual farmers, the National Farmers Union locally and the NFU regionally? In addition, is my hon. Friend aware that over the past year the scheme was over-subscribed threefold in Shropshire and Staffordshire? Given such success signs, is it possible even now to say that the scheme should be expanded over a wider part of the country?
  Mr. Morley: I can certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a popular scheme. I have been to Staffordshire to see it in operation. I have talked to local farmers who are part of the pilot, and they are enthusiastic about it. I am convinced of the benefits of many aspects of the scheme. We have already offered an over-winter stubble option in some environmentally sensitive areas. My hon. Friend will know that we are substantially increasing the budget for countryside stewardship schemes under our rural development programme. There will be about £1 billion available for agri-environmental programmes over the next seven years. I am sure that there will be room within that programme for extending the scheme into other areas.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—

  Judicial Conference
  Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): What the purpose was of the recent Conference of European Chief Justices and Attorney Generals sponsored by Her Majesty's Government in London; and what the cost was to the Law Officers Department. [127059]
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): A conference of presidents of the supreme courts and Attorneys-General of the member states of the European Union has taken place every two years since the 1970s. The conference is not, formally speaking, an EU event. The theme of this year's conference was human rights, focusing in particular on the impact of the European Court of Human Rights over the past 50 years, the relationship

  1039
  between EC law and ECHR law and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. The cost to the UK Government was £60,000.
  Ann Clwyd: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that under the international law principle of universal jurisdiction, those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide can be prosecuted in any country? Did the EU meeting discuss the responsibility of various EU countries to prosecute war criminals, particularly Iraqi war criminals, and what is the role of the United Kingdom in all this?
  The Solicitor-General: I cannot reveal the substance of the discussions as they proceeded on the basis of the Chatham House rules. My hon. Friend knows that we and other European states are determined that, for example, there should be an international criminal court. Draft legislation on that will be published in the fairly near future. The United Kingdom Government and other European Governments are also signatories to instruments such as the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
  My hon. Friend will know also that the acts of the Government and of the UK courts in the Pinochet case have been warmly welcomed throughout the world in establishing that there should be no hiding place for war criminals.
  Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Will the Solicitor-General share with us his view of the status of any agreed charter or convention on human rights, even one that is not incorporated in the treaties, in the light of his discussions with his colleagues in other countries? Does he take the view that is circulating in parts of the Government that any such agreement, even if not in the treaty, could be used in the European Court of Justice and could become part of UK law, even though the Prime Minister is saying that it would not do so?
  The Solicitor-General: We have made it clear that the charter must be simply declaratory; it should not create any new competences. That is accepted by President Herzog, who chairs the convention that is drawing up the charter. We are absolutely clear about that: no new competences and a purely declaratory charter. We take the view also that a charter would set out clearly for EU citizens the rights that they have. We consider that to be very important.
  We are aware of the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but we have said clearly that the European Court of Justice must not go beyond existing rights. We have said that social rights are better dealt with in other ways. Some of the social rights that have emerged—in terms, for example, of a fair balance between family and work life—are legally pretty meaningless.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): If he will make a statement on the legal costs incurred by his Department in (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [127060]
  The Solicitor-General: When I saw this question, I thought that it was like the 19th century report on Malvern water that contains absolutely nothing.
  1040
  Apart from staff costs, my Department incurred £573,900 in disbursements for legal costs in 1998–99. The figure for 1999–2000 was £716,000.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that the Attorney-General is thinking of dispensing with the services of Treasury juniors—banisters in private practice who undertake important prosecutions at the Old Bailey—will the Solicitor-General confirm that they do outstanding work and provide excellent value for money? Does he agree that to dispense with them could cause an unnecessary increase in the costs of his Department?
  The Solicitor-General: Treasury counsel at the Old Bailey prosecute heavy cases involving, for example, the Official Secrets Act and terrorism. They also prosecute in murder cases, which throughout the country are also prosecuted by ordinary counsel from the Bar. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has requested an inquiry into whether it is appropriate for cases of murder, rape or robbery heard at the Bailey always to be handled by Treasury counsel. But we accept that some important cases should be dealt with by a specialist cadre of banisters at the Old Bailey.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): What proportion of the costs incurred related to the expense of employing Queen's counsel? Does my hon. and learned friend agree that the Government should do all they can to push down those exorbitant fees, whereby some banisters earn more than £1 million a year? Is everything being done to get the Government's legal bill down to sensible proportions?
  The Solicitor-General: All Treasury counsel at the Old Bailey are juniors, not silks. Civil work by counsel representing the Government is done by juniors. We have various panels representing levels of expertise whose members are all juniors. Only exceptionally are silks employed, and that has to be approved by me personally or by the Attorney-General. The Bar accepts that there must be a discount on fees for Government work, so we are certainly conscious of expenditure. When the Attorney-General or I appear, we charge absolutely nothing.
  Mr. John Burnett: What impact do the costs referred to by the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have on the budget of the Crown Prosecution Service? On Monday in another place, the Attorney-General announced a slight increase in the CPS budget. Given the costs we have just heard about and the 3 per cent. per annum budget savings, how much money will be left to improve the performance of the CPS?
  The Solicitor-General: I am pleased that we have been able to secure £15.8 million extra for the Crown Prosecution Service on a budget of about £350 million per annum—and I am confident that we will do well in the comprehensive spending review for the next three years. The CPS budget is quite separate from that for counsel employed by the service, which is uncapped. The CPS is always highly conscious of the fees payable to prosecution counsel. The complaint is made, quite legitimately, by counsel who appear for the CPS that they are paid much less than defence counsel—which disparity we are trying to address.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth): What training has been given to Government lawyers to prepare for the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. [127061]
  The Solicitor-General: A busy programme of training and guidance has already been provided to Government lawyers on the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The training takes the form of conferences, training events, departmental in-house seminars, and attendance by Government lawyers at external training events. An updated version of "Judge over your Shoulder", an information booklet aimed at non-lawyers, is available on the Treasury Solicitor's website.
  In addition, Departments are supported by three cross-cutting committees. Two of them consider the human rights aspects of civil and criminal proceedings, and the third, a Cabinet Office committee, considers human rights issues on which a collective view is required.
  Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he give the House an assurance that the Government lawyers will be ready on the implementation day of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is only weeks away?
  The Solicitor-General: There is an extensive training programme, as I explained. There is also a training programme for the Crown Prosecution Service, jointly with the police. Some 3,000 lawyers and others have to be trained in the CPS, and I am confident that the training will be completed by the end of July.
  Mr. Edward Gamier (Harborough): I have no doubt that Government lawyers are well trained for the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998; my concern is that Ministers are not. I asked the Home Secretary last Monday what training Ministers were receiving to bring them up to date with their own legislation, and he was not able to answer the question. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can answer it on his behalf. What has he done, and what has the Attorney-General done, to make sure that Ministers know even the slightest bit about their own legislation?
  The Solicitor-General: I certainly would not say that Ministers are all-knowing, but they know a great deal about the Human Rights Act. They are conscious that it is one of the most important steps that the Government have taken. As always, the Opposition are turning wine into water. As I have said on previous occasions, the Act is a significant development in persuading the country that a rights culture is important.

  Fraud
  Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): If he will make a statement on his policy towards serious fraud cases. [127062]
  The Solicitor-General: Effective investigation and prosecution are the best deterrents to fraud. I have every confidence that the investigating and prosecuting
  1042
  authorities who come under the superintendence of the Law Officers—the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service—have had notable success in recent years in pursuing serious fraud cases.
  Miss McIntosh: Does the Solicitor-General share my concern at the increasing delays in the bringing of serious fraud cases to prosecution? Can he assure the House that the Human Rights Act 1998, once implemented, will not add to the delay? That is particularly important when someone is accused of a serious fraud and is subsequently cleared.
  The Solicitor-General: We are conscious of the problems of delay. That is why reducing delays and bringing persistent young offenders to justice appeared on our pledge card as a prominent pledge. Serious fraud cases are frequently complicated and their scope is often international, so inquiries must be undertaken in other countries. One of the difficulties that we have faced in prosecuting international fraud is that sometimes other countries are not as co-operative as we would want.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): In view of what my hon. and learned Friend says about the complexity of many serious fraud cases, and the fact that with new technology the situation can become even more complex, what steps does he believe the Serious Fraud Office can take to increase the speed with which cases are dealt with and the effectiveness of prosecutions?
  The Solicitor-General: I have no difficulty with the speed with which prosecutions are brought. The Serious Fraud Office is successful. In the current financial year, for example, the SFO has achieved 12 convictions, as against four acquittals—a 75 per cent. conviction rate. Of course, conviction rates are not an absolute test of the success of any prosecuting agency.
  Only last week, for example, the SFO secured convictions against two directors of the Ostrich Farming Corporation Ltd. They had been selling ostriches as an investment opportunity and had attracted some 2,800 customers. They had an annual turnover of £21 million, but the birds sold did not exist. It was all very much like the Opposition: heads in the sand and selling duff policies.
  Madam Speaker: We now come to written question No. 5.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—

  BSE
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): What is the latest date of birth of a BSE-confirmed case.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, I should like to answer the question orally. An animal born on 25 August 1996 was confirmed as a BSE case on 27 June this year. The date is significant because it is after 1 August 1996, when extra control measures on animal feed containing

  1043
  mammalian meat and bone meal—MBM—had been implemented. The state veterinary service will carry out a special investigation into the background of the case. However, experts have always foreseen that a few cases of BSE could be confirmed in animals born after 1 August 1996. Indeed, an assessment last year on behalf of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee assumed that, by the end of 2000, up to 19 cases born after August 1996 might be identified.
  This does not change in any way our view that we have the toughest rules in place to protect public health and to eradicate the disease.
  Mr. Quinn: On behalf of all hon. Members, I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing my question to be answered orally. It is important for many people in agriculture to be fully informed of all the issues. Given that the animal was born after the ban was in place, what reasons can my right hon. Friend offer for the animal becoming infected? What assessment has he made of the health implications of the news for many consumers in my constituency and throughout the country? What impact will the news have on lifting the international ban on British beef? Does my right hon. Friend propose to hold any discussions on the information with his European colleagues, especially those in France?
  Mr. Brown: There are several important points to make. First, I make it absolutely clear that there is no risk to food safety as a result of the case. The Food Standards Agency is issuing a statement to that effect today. The cow—aged 44 months at time of slaughter—would not have entered the human food chain, because of the rules that prevent animals aged over 30 months from getting into the food chain. The animal has one offspring, which has already been traced, and will not enter the food chain.
  Secondly, the animal would have been ineligible for our date-based export scheme, not only because of its age, but because its mother was slaughtered as a casualty in November 1996, less than three months after the animal was born. As many hon. Members know, under the date-based export scheme, the dam must survive for at least six months after the birth of the calf and show no signs of BSE.
  There is an automatic cull of offspring of animals that are confirmed cases of BSE. That would not, however, prevent cases of maternally transmitted BSE if the dam was slaughtered for reasons other than BSE when the disease was in its pre-clinical phase. That could be the explanation in the case that we are considering.
  Investigations into the source of infection are continuing. In accordance with standing procedures, cohort animals born six months either side of the animal will be traced, placed under movement restrictions and barred from the food chain. The state veterinary service will thoroughly investigate the background to the case in order to establish whether anything about the BSE epidemic can be learned from it.
  The overall BSE epidemic continues to decline along predicted lines. Details for Great Britain are given in the table that I shall lay before the House today.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome the Minister's prompt release of the information, although the House might have preferred a different procedure, such as an oral
  1044
  statement. I accept entirely the Minister's assurances that public health has not been put at risk and that the controls that relate to BSE have proved effective in the case that we are considering. Will the Minister publish any advice that he obtains from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee as soon as it is available? In relation to the actual case, were the symptoms manifested before the animal was slaughtered? Is the Minister planning to check whether there was any contamination in the cattle food supply? Will steps also be taken to trace the siblings of this animal? Finally, does the Minister agree that this case will reinforce concerns that have been highlighted in the farming press very recently—that imported meat from cattle which are over 30 months old is being sold in Britain? Do the Government believe that British consumers may be at risk from such imports?
  Mr. Brown: The case that we are discussing today has nothing to do with imported meat products. The hon. Gentleman asked me about siblings. Yes, they are being traced. He asked me about the possibility of contaminated feed being a route of transmission—an alternative theory to maternal transmission. Yes, I can confirm that the veterinary authorities are looking closely at that potential route. As the hon. Gentleman implied in his question, the animal concerned had been under surveillance for some time, but there was never any possibility of its entering the food chain. As for the procedure, I thought carefully about what would be proportionate. I carefully considered a statement, which frankly this single incident does not warrant. I considered providing a written answer, and had it not been for the fortuitous fact that Agriculture questions were today, I would have followed that route and probably will follow it for other such incidents—and it is forecast that they will occur.
  Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands): How does our experience of BSE cases compare with the experience in France and Germany?
  Mr. Brown: We have unique, very powerful public protection measures in place. The German authorities visited recently when they were considering their own position on the date-based export scheme. They were very impressed by our public protection measures and reported favourably on them to the German federal Government and to the regional governments too. I regret the fact that the French Government are still persisting with their ban. There is no good reason why they should do so and today's incident gives no additional reason why they should do so.
  Mr. Colin Breed: I too welcome the openness with which the Government have approached this matter, in stark contrast to the previous Administration, who tried to hide the problem of BSE. It is important that we continue with this approach and that if any other cases come to light in the near future they should be reported. Will this news have any effect whatever on plans in respect of the continuance of the OTM scheme?
  Mr. Brown: I know of no reason why it should do so. If anything, the discovery of this animal and the way it has been dealt with ought to provide additional reassurance to those who are interested in the scheme.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): Does my right hon. Friend believe that this case makes it all the more important to develop tests to detect the agent of BSE before the disease is apparent to clinical observation, so that we can detect whether an animal has the disease before it becomes ill?
  Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with that. No country has more to gain from the development of a live test for BSE, particularly one that is effective before the clinical conditions become obvious. However, there is no such test at the moment, although there are some promising developments.
  Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Is not the most important element the fact that the system of public surveillance and protection has worked, in that the mother, the animal, the offspring and the siblings can be and have all been traced and slaughtered? Is there any evidence that the animal was kept in proximity to other animals which might have had access to contaminated feed and hence offered a possible source of the problem?
  Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Traceability is one of the foundations of our powerful public protection measures. On his second question, I am not sure how far it is proper for me to discuss the individual details of the case, but the right hon. Gentleman has not said anything that I would dissent from in general or in principle.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept that the news is a disappointment. Will he confirm that only one case has been discovered of an infected animal born after 1 August 1996? He will know that no farm should have had any contaminated foodstuffs after that date. Has he been able to eliminate that as a possible cause? Assuming that he has, it must be a case of maternal or vertical transmission. Can he confirm that?
  Mr. Brown: I cannot tell the House the cause of the case with absolute certainty. Some evidence points to maternal transmission, but that does not rule out contaminated animal feed as a potential route. We are investigating every aspect thoroughly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it is disappointing—I agree—but to put it in context, those who advised SEAC anticipated 19 such cases before the end of this year. This is the first and only case so far, which speaks well for the public protection measures that we have in place and for the thoroughness with which the work was done in August 1996.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he has come to the House, which will prevent the rumour-mongering that would no doubt have occurred if he had not. Does the incident make any difference to the timetable by which eradication will be complete?
  Mr. Brown: No, it makes no difference to the timetable. The incident was foreseeable, and the fact that it is the only one suggests that the public protection measures are working even more effectively than those who provided the forecasts to SEAC envisaged.
  Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): The Minister has been frank in saying that he is not certain about the cause of the incident. Against that background, will he confirm that the Ministry will continue to give support, where appropriate, to further research work, not least the alternative hypothesis advanced by my constituent, Mark Purdey, and Dr. Brown of Cambridge university, about which I have already had a meeting with the Minister of State?
  Mr. Brown: The Ministry has provided some funding for research based on alternatives to the prion theory, and I do not rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. However, the mainstream view from the scientific community—I am not a scientist, but a generalist who relies on being professionally advised—appears to be well founded. The combination of the public protection measures based on that scientific approach seems to be working effectively, and we will wish to draw the lessons from that.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): My right hon. Friend mentioned work that was being done on the issue of the pre-clinical live test. Could he give further details? In the event that a live test could be established, would it apply throughout the whole of the European Union, and have other nation states accepted it in principle?
  Mr. Brown: I and my fellow Ministers at the Council of Ministers are all keen on the development of a live test and we can all see the huge advantages for the industry and for public protection of having such a test. Several different countries have projects, and some may offer a way forward, but we are not there yet.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister considered the possibility of introducing post-mortems for all cattle slaughtered over 30 months, which do not enter the food chain? When the post-mortem shows no trace of BSE, those animals could be allowed into the food chain. We would also have the assurance that we were picking up every case of BSE, even though it had not been diagnosed prior to slaughter.
  Mr. Brown: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have an extensive testing programme on animals not destined for the human food chain. The purpose of that is to try to gauge the extent to which BSE is present in those animals. We have no cheap and easily administered test. At the moment, we have three tests—all of which were used in the present case—but they take time and carry a cost. Thus it is not realistic to test every animal. Once we have a live test—when that day comes—no country will have more to gain than ours, given our current position.

Business of the House
12.45 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 3 JuLY—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Government's early release of prisoners" followed by a debate on "Neill recommendations relating to Ministers and special advisers". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 4 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 6 Jun—Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on HM Customs and Excise followed by a debate on Department of Social Security medical services. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 7 JULY—Debate on the report of the committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 10 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 11 JULY—Remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 JuLY—Remaining stages of the Care Standards Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 13 JULY—Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 14 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Friday 28 July, and that it will return on Monday 23 October.
[Thursday 6 July:
Class XVI: Vote 4: Customs and Excise: Administration.
Class XII: Vote 3: Department of Social Security: Administration as it relates to medical services.]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for next week's business and for an indication of the business in the following week. We are also very grateful for the information about the summer recess.
1048
Does the relatively late return of the House in October, combined with the large volume of legislation still in the pipeline, mean that the opening of Parliament will be delayed until December, or that the Government are planning to abandon part of their legislative programme, such as the Freedom of Information Bill?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement in the next two weeks on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, and will she give the date? Will she confirm that there will be a debate in Government time on that statement?
Will the Prime Minister make a statement on Monday on the outcome of his hastily arranged summit with the German Chancellor?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, before the House rises, we will have the outstanding debate on defence procurement, and that there will be the normal two-day debate on the defence White Paper in the autumn?
It is a year since we had a debate on drugs in Government time. Will the Leader of the House find time to debate that most important subject?
Finally, when the right hon. Lady has had her frank and cordial exchange of views with the Liaison Committee, may we have a debate on its most important report, "Shifting the Balance"?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a relatively late return after the summer recess, but the period for the recess is perfectly ordinary. Indeed, if one looks at the record one sees that the recess was substantially longer in 1992, 1994 and 1995 than is proposed for this year. It is true, of course, that we had shorter recesses in 1998 and 1999, but that was under a Labour Government; under Conservative Governments, holidays are clearly more of a priority.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me for a debate on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. I cannot give a date for that at present, but I do anticipate that a statement will be made and hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not likely to seek to make a statement on a summit meeting with the German Chancellor, as he is not having a summit with him.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): What is he doing there then?
Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister is going to Germany to make a speech, and as a matter of courtesy he will pay his respects to the German Chancellor while he is there.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a debate on defence procurement, and of course we anticipate that those matters will be discussed. When that will be we can discuss through the usual channels. He also asked me about the Defence White Paper, which, again, is a matter that the Government have under review.
On the subject of the Liaison Committee, I am very much looking forward to giving evidence to the Committee. At some point following that, I anticipate that the House will wish to discuss its report.
Mr. George Mudie: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent reports from that increasingly

1049
eccentric and politically motivated organisation, Ofsted. One such report contains the quaint observation that only two local authorities in the country are adding to the value of their schools: one is a borough of only 26 schools; the other is the City of London, which has a grand total of one primary school. In view of the harm that this organisation is doing to individuals and to local authorities, can my right hon. Friend possibly find time for a debate on Ofsted's sad and sorry record?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot offer my hon. Friend time for an early debate on the issue, although I know that some Ofsted reports have caused considerable controversy. He will be well aware that there are reports in which there has been praise for various local authorities, as well as some in which there has been criticism. He will be aware also that this matter goes across authorities that are under different political control. I fear that I cannot promise an early debate on the matter, but I remind my hon. Friend that Education questions will be held next Thursday.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House will have heard the serious concern that greeted the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's statement about BSE. Can she give any indication when the Government expect to receive the report of the Phillips inquiry into the sad saga and gross mishandling of the BSE crisis by the previous Government? Can she give an undertaking that if there is a possibility of the report being received before the summer recess, there will be an early statement and debate before the recess, as this is a matter of major concern to both sides of the House?
On the subject of certainty in the parliamentary year, the Leader of the House will have heard Members on both sides expressing concern about the present uncertainty. Can she give any indication whether a date has been pencilled into the royal diary for the opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech, as that is clearly a matter of real concern? Will she give an undertaking—either through the usual channels or to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons—to consider a proposal which has been made before: that the House should meet the holiday requirements of those from Scotland and a number of northern cities and towns and have the summer recess at the end of June; that it should come back in September for the spillover; that we should have the interim period before the Queen's Speech to coincide with the party conferences; and that we should have the Queen's Speech later in October, rather than later in the year?
Mrs. Beckett: First, my understanding is that the Phillips report is not likely to be available before the summer recess, although I take on board the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the House's wish to scrutinise the report when it becomes available.
Secondly, I am afraid that it is certainly not within my power or remit to give indications in advance as to the contents of the royal diary. However, I can certainly say that the wilder hopes entertained by Conservative Members are unlikely to be borne out. The hon. Gentleman will understand it when I say that careful scrutiny of the amount of legislation that has been put through in previous years in no way justifies any contention that this Government's programme is heavier
1050
than normal. In the early years of the Government headed by Lady Thatcher, there were 10 or 20 more Bills than the present Government are endeavouring to put through. There is certainly no indication of difficulties.
Any glance at the statistics will show that, under a Labour Government, discussion in the Lords—for some unaccountable reason—seems to take more time and has resulted in more defeats for the Government's programme. The statistics are incontestable. That is a cross that all Labour Governments have had to bear and, no doubt, this Government will continue to bear it. [Interruption.] As for the noises from sedentary positions about the Lords being our House, I remind Conservative Members that there are still 30 more Conservative peers than Labour peers there. Hopefully, in the fullness of time, that will change—at least a little.
With regard to the recess, I believe that under the previous Government, straight after the Jopling report, there was certainly one year—perhaps even two—in which an attempt was made for the House to rise earlier in July. However, I fear that the previous Government were not successful in maintaining that record. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a change in the pattern of the kind that he describes would have substantial knock-on effects for things like party conferences.
I suspect that the House will continue to return to this matter. However, it seems to me that a more general organisation of our business and other improvements in the way we handle legislation are required before we can come to such conclusions.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): My right hon. Friend will very kindly be coming to give evidence to the Liaison Committee. Will she be able to indicate to the House the Government's attitude towards its very sensible report? It is, after all, a way in which modernisation can be carried forward and Back-Bench Members can have a much stronger and more effective role in the House of Commons. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time to indicate how we can proceed.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have published a response to the Liaison Committee report. As I have told her and others, I take that report very seriously. Its proposals are profound and would have a significant impact on the work of individual Members. For that reason, I believe that it deserves the most serious scrutiny; but I fear that I cannot tell my hon. Friend that it is likely to be before the Chamber of this House in the very near future.
Mr. Roger Gale: Last night the Select Committee on Broadcasting agreed a report on the future televising of the proceedings of Parliament. That report will be published on Wednesday 5 July. Given the urgent need, in the light of changing technology and the changing circumstances facing the sittings of the House, to revise the procedures for broadcasting, will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on that report before the House rises in July?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I take that report seriously, and I am sure that the House will want to look at it carefully. I fear, however, that it is not altogether likely that it will be possible to debate it before the end of July

1051
since, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, by the time the House has had a chance to consider it, we will be heading for the second week in July. However, I take his point seriously.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): If we are to debate Neill's recommendations on ministerial advisers—and I presume that Tory Members think that they will have a feast—would my right hon. Friend arrange to have a document placed in the Library? I refer to the agreement on Short money, whereby taxpayers' money is paid to Conservative Members of Parliament for them to hire political advisers for Front-Bench spokesmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] In that way, there will be a level playing field in the debate. As I understand it, £3 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated to them for that very purpose.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am not sure that there is a need to place a document in the Library, because the terms of the motion were on the Order Paper, and were agreed to. I was very surprised to hear Conservative Members suggesting that my hon. Friend was wrong. It suggests that their leadership may not have conveyed this useful information to them.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The Leader of the House has put down business in relation to Northern Ireland for II July which is, of course, the eve of the parades and marches that take place on 12 July. Air traffic between London and Belfast is difficult on the evening of 11 July and the morning of 12 July. It so happens that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is going over on 12 July to see the marches, as part of its inquiry on the Parades Commission. Was there any consultation with Northern Ireland interests when this particular conjuncture of dates was set down?
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that there was substantial discussion, but is not wholly clear to me whether it focused on the particular aspect of the date to which the right hon. Gentleman has quite properly drawn attention. If the interests of the Select Committee have been overlooked in any way, let me at once apologise. I shall ensure that the issues that he raises are drawn to the attention of all responsible. However, I can assure him that there has been considerable discussion of how to handle these later stages of the legislation.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): There has been a hysterical reaction to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the use of royal palaces. Given that this is said to be a no-go area for elected politicians, would it be in order for us to debate in this House the role of the monarchy, so that we can deal with those issues calmly and reflectively?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course it is open to any hon. Member to seek a debate on any issue. However, pressure on business in the Chamber is always substantial, as my hon. Friend will know, and I could not undertake to find time for such a debate here.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): Following a meeting in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
1052
Regions yesterday afternoon, when hon. Members of all parties—and in substantial numbers—sought to discuss fair funding for education in their constituencies, can we have an early debate in the House so that counties such as mine, Shropshire, which comes bottom of the pile not only for education funding but for police, health, fire and emergency and social services funding, will have an opportunity to examine the Government's policy? More particularly, we could investigate why the Government will, during the whole of this Parliament, steadfastly have set their face against changing a formula that, for many local education authorities, is totally inadequate. We were told yesterday that the formula is unlikely to change for the next three years. The Leader of the House will be aware that there has been no change for the past three years and no attempt to consider these matters. Please may we have an early debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware that there has been no change in the funding formula in recent years, which means that it is the formula that was put in place by the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported. I am sure that it is within his knowledge that it is not true that the matter has not been considered: it has received, and continues to receive, extensive consideration. The hon. Gentleman will know that the issues are both complex and difficult. I can assure him that the Government will continue to work to try to get greater fairness into the system. As he will readily identify from the fact that it is the formula that we inherited, there are no easy answers.
Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon): Following the recent meeting in London of Attorneys-General and European Chief Justices to discuss, among other matters, the provisions of the international criminal court, can we have an early debate that could lead to ratification of the ICC treaty? Britain was one of the leading players in gaining international agreement to the ICC and was one of the first to sign the treaty. It would not be right for Britain to be one of the last to ratify it, nor would it send the right message at a time when we should again be taking a leading role in injecting a sense of urgency into the implementation of this important international initiative.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an important initiative on which Britain has a good record. Of course, he will be aware that, unfortunately, an early debate would not be to the point. What is needed is legislation. He will also know that that legislation is not in this year's programme and that we do not discuss what may be in next year's. However, I accept his point; this is an important issue.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Can we please have a debate entitled "Crime and Punishment", to be opened by the Home Secretary and wound up by the Prime Minister, so that the Home Secretary can clarify for the House the recent alarming stories that crime is spiralling completely out of control in this country and that we are now more lawless than the United States of America? We need clarification from the Home Secretary on that. Could the Prime Minister wind up the debate and tell us who these extra people he wants to be put in prison are, where the prison places are, and whether he is remotely concerned with judicial process or just wants to bang them all up straight away?
Mrs. Beckett: I detected an interesting inconsistency in the right hon. Gentleman's question. He started by

1053
attacking the Government's record on crime, but promptly turned round to ask, "Does the Prime Minister just want to bang them all up without trial?" That is precisely what we see from the Conservative party. Conservative Members claim continually, whether about asylum, crime, hooliganism or whatever, that the Government are not taking action. The minute we start to do so, they cause problems and do not support us. As for the remarks to which he drew attention, I am not entirely sure where the gentleman who made them resides in the United States, but I can only think that he works for the New York tourist board, because the notion that one is more likely to experience violent crime in Britain than in the United States is not borne out by any statistics that I have ever seen.
Ms Julia Drown: Given the wise decision this week by members of Standard Life to keep that organisation mutual, can my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the benefits of mutuality to its members? I ask that for two reasons. First, Bradford and Bingley members will make a crucial decision on their future next month, and organisations such as Nationwide, the headquarters of which are in my constituency, would appreciate the opportunity for Members to make it clear that carpetbaggers who are pushing for a quick buck now make members pay for it time and again later. Secondly, if we lose this mutual status from our organisations, we will lose crucial competition in our financial services markets.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right that competition in the financial markets is beneficial and that the element that mutuality can provide is worth while. Certainly that is the view of all on this side of the House and, until I heard certain remarks from the Opposition, I had thought that was perhaps even the view of Conservative Members. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend will know that there are now 200 extra opportunities for debates—in Westminster Hall—and I suggest that she should perhaps consider one of those.
Mr. Graham Brady: We know that the Government are shirking their responsibility to reply to the Neill report, but so far they have also failed to reply to or to allow a debate on the Fritchie report, which points to deliberate and systematic politicisation of national health service appointments under this Government. Given that the written answers that I have now obtained demonstrate that things have not improved since the report's publication and that, indeed, 30 per cent. of short-listed applicants for appointments as non-executives to the new primary care trusts declare political activity for the Labour party, is it not now essential that the Government make a statement or allow a debate on the matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government will reply to the Neill report and that we are still within the time that is normally expected for such replies to be made, so the notion that the Government are evading their responsibilities is not in any way borne out. I remind him too, on the issue of the Fritchie report, that the appointments made under this Government have
1054
resulted in substantially more women and people from minority communities being appointed to such boards than previously. I note that the Conservative party is opposed to that.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about 30 per cent. of recent appointees being from the Labour party, we are talking about the smallest element—the political appointees—of the appointments that are made. Within those, it is perfectly natural that some come from the Labour party, although I recognise that that was not what happened under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I was tempted to ask whether we might have a statement from the Minister responsible for Lord Levy on whether Lord Levy has been given the number of the Inland Revenue's confidential tax helpline to help those in the hidden economy regularise their affairs—but I will resist that temptation. May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on the reason why his office cleared last night's speech by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, outrageously suggesting that a future Labour Government would bring in the alternative vote system for future parliamentary elections? Had it been applied at the last election the Government's disproportionate victory would have been massively increased. Is this not a sign that the Government are beginning to recognise that their only hope for long-term electoral success is to rig the rules, fix the elections and cheat the electorate?
Mrs. Beckett: First, Lord Levy has made it plain that he disagrees with tax avoidance and has never practised it. Unlike many who support the Conservative party, he has paid literally millions of pounds in tax in this country without taking advantage of any of the avoidance devices so familiar to Members opposite. Secondly, I have not seen a report which makes the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman is making about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The reports that I have seen suggest that my right hon. Friend said that the matter should not be regarded as closed and that people should give serious consideration to it. As for the notion that there are currently any proposals to change the electoral system, the hon. Gentleman will know that there are not.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Will the right hon. Lady invite her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement to the House in the next few weeks on the state of negotiations between the United Kingdom and United States Governments on bilateral air service agreements? Will the Secretary of State take that opportunity to give the House an assurance that he will not conclude such negotiations under pressure from the US before elections take place there this year, unless it is in the interests of British airlines—passenger and cargo—to do so? Will he also give the House an assurance that he will conclude any agreement only on the basis of access to US cabotage-with an end to the "fly American" policy and to the stringent ownership and control rights currently enjoyed by the Americans?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware in precise detail of where we are on the timing of the negotiations; to my

1055
knowledge, they have been going on—literally—for years. The reason they have been going on for years is because the Deputy Prime Minister is determined to defend Britain's interests—as the House would expect.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have a debate on the agreement on the civil list reported in today's newspapers? It appears that the royal household has cut its costs enormously and that there will be a real-terms reduction in the amount paid to the civil list. Perhaps it would be useful if someone from the royal household could put a feed into the Government as to how one can cut one's costs these days, especially as the Prime Minister—in setting up his presidential office—seems constantly to be increasing expenditure.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate, or indicate that there is likely to be a statement on the matter in the near future.
On costs, the hon. Gentleman should know that the costs of central Government have reduced in real terms since the Labour Government were elected. As for how the royal household managed to make savings, it is my understanding that—perfectly reasonably, as it was a long-term settlement—the royal household assumed, and it was assumed under the previous settlement, that inflation and interest rates would continue at the same disastrous levels as they were under the Conservatives. A successful Government conducting a successful economic policy have turned that around.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): As the right hon. Lady is aware, the Prime Minister chose to alter the structure of Prime Minister's Question Time after the general election. May we have an urgent debate about the new structure that we seem to have? The right hon. Lady will be aware that an analysis of yesterday's Prime Minister's Question Time shows that the Prime Minister spent more than 25 per cent. of his answer time talking about what he perceived to be Conservative party policy. Is it not true that he is not responsible for Conservative party policy? Is it not completely improper that he deliberately sets out to distort policy when he knows that what he is saying is not the truth?
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot accept that last sentence. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realised what he was implying. He must apologise and withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Fabricant: I have no hesitation in withdrawing them. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not mean to give a misleading misrepresentation of Conservative party policy.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware, as we all are, of the changes made by the Prime Minister. That has resulted in his being in attendance at Prime Minister's Question Time more often. He has taken more questions than his predecessor, just as he has made more statements than his predecessor.
I have not calculated—indeed, I should be surprised if anyone could do so—how much time was spent yesterday on remarks on Conservative party policy. However, if it
1056
was 25 per cent., that too is a significant improvement, as it is well within my memory that my right hon. Friend's predecessor used to spend at least 90 per cent. of his time talking about Labour party policy.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): May we have a debate on postal services? The Postal Services Bill has received its Second Reading. Many of us sat, day after day, in Committee on that Bill and it has been considered on Report and Third Reading—but there was not a word from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about how he would help rural post offices until yesterday's statement. It was only when the Prime Minister got a rollicking from the Women's Institute that the Government made any proposals to help rural post offices. In addition to a debate on rural post offices and the future of the Post Office, will the Leader of the House advise us on how to nominate the WI for a collective DBE for its contribution to the rural economy?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman took part in the debates on the Postal Services Bill, he must surely have observed the discussions about the possibility of making resources available to keep a good post office network. If he thought that that would exclude rural post offices, I would be very surprised. The statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was welcomed by both sides of the House and it was based on a performance and innovation unit report that has self-evidently been under preparation for a considerable time. The notion that the statement was in some way related to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech to the WI has no foundation. On the other issues that surrounded that speech, a small number of those in attendance clearly did not wish to know what the Government are doing for rural post offices, but I imagine that most of the population take a rather different view.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Earlier, the Solicitor-General was so garrulous that we were unable to reach Question 32, and therefore unable to ask him quite what he meant when he said today that it was important to create a rights culture. Yesterday, the Home Secretary told local government representatives that they would be facing a raft of legal challenges as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Lord Chancellor has pointed out that it will cost £40 million in additional legal aid next year. I do not recall Ministers being quite so forthcoming when the Act was being considered by the House, so is it not a matter that we might revisit with a further debate? Furthermore, does the Leader of House agree that our human rights are being infringed by being unable to celebrate the Queen Mother's birthday with a public holiday?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware that it is a human right to celebrate the Queen Mother's birthday, although I expect that many people, not least the Queen Mother herself, will do so.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are already subject to the European convention on human rights. All that has happened as a result of the change that the Government have made, is that people can exercise their rights in this

1057
country instead of having to exercise them by accessing courts overseas. Given their Europhobia, I would have thought that Conservative Members might welcome that.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): A Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry said in the Berliner Zeitung that this country was likely to become a member of the single currency sooner than everyone expects and that this country would be bounced into an early referendum on the single currency should the Labour party form the next Government. Last night, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Prime Minister had not gone cold on proportional representation and that it was likely that a commitment for a referendum on a changed voting system would also be given. Will the Leader of the House tell the House whether Alastair Campbell has yet told the Prime Minister when the country is likely to have both referendums?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware that anyone has suggested that my right hon. Friend from the DTI said that this country would be bounced into a referendum. The Labour party is offering the people of this country a referendum, and the Conservative party will certainly not do that in the next Parliament. As to the issue of what my right hon. Friend is or is not supposed to have said, heaven knows that it is difficult enough to get people to report things accurately even when the remarks are not translated.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): Further to the right hon. Lady's reply, will she help the House by saying whether the remarks of the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe were a translation of the views of the Prime Minister, or those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or possibly even those of the Foreign Secretary? Is it not time that the House at last had an open and full discussion of the genuine intentions of the Government on the single currency and on when they wish to introduce it?
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the report was not even a translation of the views of my right hon. Friend.

Opposition Day 15TH ALLOTTED DAY

  National Health Service
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister. Because of the number of Back-Bench Members who wish to take part in the debate, I have had to limit speeches to 15 minutes.
  1.19 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox(Woodspring) rose—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Dr. Fox: I will be happier if my hon. Friends cheer when I have finished my speech, Madam Speaker.
  I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's continued distortion of priorities in the National Health Service through its focus on political targets rather than clinical outcomes, its waste of scarce NHS resources, which would be better spent treating patients, on propaganda exercises, the bogus "national consultation" and a new logo, its manipulation of the appointments system within the NHS and its continued political interference in day to day management, creating a climate of fear and frustration which is driving good NHS managers out of the Service, and its failure to live up to its promises to end post-code rationing and to put patients first; and notes the huge gap between Labour's promises on health at the last General Election and the reality today, which is that, for the great majority of the British people, the NHS has got worse, not better, under this Labour Government.
  If we want a clear example of the Government's priorities in their approach to running health care in the United Kingdom, we need to look no further than last night's edition of the Evening Standard. Its headline "NHS blocks shock report on killing" tells us all that we need to know about the culture in the Government and the attitudes of Ministers. The report states:
  Publication of a damning report into a care in the community patient who killed his girlfriend in London has been postponed in a Government attempt to control bad news.
  Independent experts were instructed by the Department of Health to delay the inquiry report, which was due out today, because it would clash with a "big news day" on health, with Health Secretary Alan Milburn expected to make a major announcement.
  The report continues:
  The move has dismayed leading mental health charities, which believe reports are being systematically delayed and unpublicised in order to avoid damaging headlines about the failures of care in the community.
  Marjorie Wallace of SANE said: "We're concerned that, increasingly, inquiries are being treated as only bad news to be suppressed, rather than giving vital evidence to prevent future tragedies."
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): On that very point—
  Dr. Fox: I have hardly started, and shall take interventions later. [Interruption.] I shall not take the intervention of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He may as well save his blood pressure and sit down for a moment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a tradition in the House of Commons

  1059
  that a Member who makes an allegation of that nature gives way to interventions. Is that not correct? What is wrong with the man?
  Madam Speaker: The Member who has the Floor determines for himself whether to give way. I heard the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) say that he would give way in a moment or two. Is that correct?
  Dr. Fox: Yes, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stand by that statement.
  Dr. Fox: I did not say that I would give way to the hon. Member for Workington, only that I would give way. Some hon. Members, however long they have been here, are slow learners.
  The Government exist only to be in office and are obsessed with their own image.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Is this a genuine point of order?
  Mr. Bennett: Surely the hon. Gentleman's remark was an insult to you, Madam Speaker, and he should withdraw it.
  Madam Speaker: I must have a particularly thick skin this Thursday morning, as I did not recognise it as an insult.
  Dr. Fox: I do not feel too sorry, as I have been in the Whips Office and know a Whips' operation when I see one. I know what a badly rattled Government try to do when they are in trouble. If there are no more points of order for the time being, I shall continue with bad-mouthing the Government.
  The Government are obsessed by their own image, PR and propaganda. They are devoid of substance and are willing to subjugate truth, public interest and individual well-being and care to their overwhelming desire to remain in power. Yesterday's incident was just another example of that. The Government's priority is prioritising good news for Labour politicians, which is underpinned by bullying, secrecy and manipulation. In 1995, the Labour party stated:
  One particularly damaging development in the Conservative years has been the emergence of a culture of fear in the NHS … We believe that all staff should be able to speak their minds.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose
  —
  Dr. Fox: True to my word, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Workington.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I have the good fortune of telling him that yesterday's Evening Standard report that he read out is a
  1060
  total and utter fabrication. In the light of that, is he prepared to reconsider what he said and withdraw the text?
  Dr. Fox: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the barrister involved in that report. I am sure that she would be very interested if he wished to repeat outside the House the allegation that the report is bogus.
  Another example that comes to mind is the headline in this morning's edition of The Independent "Officials drew up plans for NHS cuts cover-up". The Independent reports that the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party raised the matter yesterday, and states:
  Substantial cuts in the budgets of health programmes for some of Britain's poorest communities
  apparently—
  have been agreed by Ministers.
  The Independent reports that a Department of Health letter written by an official said:
  "We will in effect be announcing cuts to anticipated health action zone budgets this year. There is likely to be some negative financial management and political feedback from HAZ partners."
  The Independent reports that another letter said:
  "There is an issue about whether you would want to write to MPs pre-empting any complaints about funding.
  Ministers have only previously written to MPs when announcing successful HAZs and on balance we feel a letter would probably draw attention to this issue and is not merited."
  That says everything about the Government's culture.
  More substantial comment on that aspect of the Government was made by Judy Jones in a revealing series of articles in the British Medical Journal. She said that when an NHS trust in Northern Ireland reneged on promised funding for a new 10-bed drug rehabilitation unit, a consultant psychiatrist expressed his concerns to a newspaper. How audacious of him! As a result, he was called to account by the trust chief executive, who told him that his actions were ill judged, ill advised and detrimental to the trust. The consultant construed the dressing down as a warning and asked the British Medical Association for advice; he was the first of a very large number of consultants to do so in recent months.
  Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise, as I do as someone who has worked in the NHS for the last 20 years, that in such cases NHS servants are only exercising the skills—that they have honed over the last two decades?
  Dr. Fox: We are discussing what, according to huge numbers of people who work in the service, has increasingly become a culture of fear, bullying, intimidation and the suppression of truth and of the interests of individuals. It is increasingly likely that managers of trusts and health authorities will be phoned by Ministers or senior civil servants and be given a dressing down and asked why they are not giving core good news stories to the newspapers instead of allowing bad news about what is happening in the NHS to filter out. In running our health service, the Government's culture is becoming increasingly corrupt, and the NHS is playing second fiddle to the interests of the Labour party's news machine.

  1061
  At last year's Labour party conference in Bournemouth, Victoria MacDonald, the health correspondent for "Channel 4 News", was confronted by Joe McCrea—at that time the special adviser to the Health Secretary—who unleashed a stream of abuse at her, at one point throwing a mobile phone. I shall not repeat his language because it would not be suitable for Hansard. Victoria MacDonald explained the reason for the attack to the British Medical Journal, saying that Mr. McCrea thought that she was off-message because of a film that she had made about the waiting lists initiative.
  In the film, which was made as a result of several off-the-record briefings, Victoria MacDonald suggested that the then Health Secretary was keen to ditch the waiting list initiative because it was distorting priorities. She said that he did not like the word "ditch" because he thought that it was damaging to the Government, although he did say that Ministers had come round to the idea that waiting times were more important than waiting list numbers. She wanted to report what Ministers genuinely thought, while they wanted to maintain complete control because they thought that in the short term the spin would be wrong for the Government, even though the policy may be right. How twisted and perverse is it possible to be? [HON. MEMBERS: "You should know."] Labour Members may think that it is funny that professionals who work in the media or the NHS should be subjected to a culture of bullying, fear and intimidation. They may think that that is immaterial and that sitting on the Government Benches is more important than any respect for truth or for professionals. However, those outside the Chamber certainly will not think that, and they will note the attitude of Labour Members.
  Another major priority for the Labour Government when they came to office was their desire to abolish the internal market and to reorganise the system. The current Secretary of State takes great credit for having abolished the internal market, but Lord Winston, in the other place, says that one of the Government's biggest failings is that they have not abolished the internal market. It is difficult to know who is in touch with reality. However, the effect on the system of Labour's ideological reorganisation matters more than the question of who is giving us the correct version—and, as ever, the effect is that we get less choice.
  Just this week, 24 of the United Kingdom's leading neurosurgeons, neurologists and anaesthetists joined the Parkinson's Disease Society in calling for changes to the current mechanism. They explained:
  Since the abolition of Extra Contractual Referrals in 1999 many patients with conditions such as movement disorders, spinal injuries and severe chronic pain syndromes are no longer able to benefit from treatment outside their local area. The current funding arrangement, known as Out of Area Treatment Allocations … operates under a fixed annual budget regardless of demand for operations. No mechanism now exists for the transfer of funds from Local Health Authorities to specialist centres.
  They then said in a statement:
  We are told that since the abolition of ECRs no mechanism exists for the transfer of funds to follow the patients that urgently need our help. Consequently our waiting lists continue to grow and we are
  1062
  unable to treat these patients with the procedures they need. We have gone backwards since last year and the year before. This is unacceptable.
  Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that that is acceptable.
  Dr. Palmer: As the hon. Gentleman continues his review of the media, would he like to comment on the today's admirable editorial in The Daily Telegraph, headlined "Dr. Fox's good health", which examines his proposals in detail and states:
  Those who continue to rely on the NHS for their health needs should not expect an analogous level of care.
  Does he accept that that would be the consequence of his approach to the health service?
  Dr. Fox: I accept that that is the view of The Daily Telegraph editorial today. I shall deal with my views shortly. [Interruption.] Given that we are discussing the lack of treatment for people with Parkinson's disease, and the fact that neurosurgeons and neurologists cannot refer their patients for the treatment that they want when they say that they were able to do so only a short time ago, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman puts the interests of the Whips Office before those of patients in the NHS.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I have given way several times already, and I shall do so again later.
  Another priority in the Government's armoury is to make funding available for their pet proposals. We have had reports this week that hospital managers say that the Government's national changeover plan in preparation for Britain's entry to the European single currency is costing millions of pounds and increasing work loads dramatically. A trust manager said:
  The plans will require substantial extra work from staff at a time when we are facing disintegration through the loss of mental health services, community hospitals and community services.
  The report further states that
  computers, printers, financial forms and stationery will be changed and new equipment for cashiers, vending machines and car parks required.
  The trust manager continues:
  It is likely that management consultants may he needed to support the process.
  It has been reported that the Department of Health admitted that the costs of preparing for the euro were high for the NHS. A spokesman did not know whether central Government would provide financial help.
  We received information this morning suggesting, from calculations made throughout the country, that the cost of preparing for the Government's changeover plan could be between £75 million and £95 million for this year alone in the NHS. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether those figures are accurate, too low or too high?
  Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman—he has practised as a doctor, so I shall give way to him—thinks that spending

  1063
  £75 million to £95 million on preparing for the euro is a good use of NHS money, I look forward to hearing from him.
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman will know, as a doctor, that GPs find it impossible to refer out of area because the Government of which he was a member set up extra-contractual referrals in the first place to limit GPs' freedom to refer out of area. If he thinks that the ECR system delivered the goods, I am afraid that he needs to talk to some more GPs, because the GPs know that the ECR budget was so tight that it was almost impossible to get health authorities to agree to pay for ECRs in the first place.
  Dr. Fox: Sometimes I really do despair. If the problem with extra-contractual referrals was that the budgetary constraints were too tight, the solution would have been to loosen them, not to abolish the system. That is typical of all that the Labour Government want to do; they want to level down to the lowest common denominator and deny choice to doctors and patients, which is exactly what they have done. The consultants, such as the neurosurgeons whom I have mentioned, have less freedom to refer. That is why their patients throughout the country get a worse quality of care under Labour than they did under the previous Conservative Government—when, although I confess there could have been fewer constraints on extra-contractual referrals, there was a big improvement for GPs. The hon. Gentleman and I know that that was a great move forward for GP choice, which this Government have denied because they do not like doctors to have increased freedom.
  The next pet project to be given extra funding is the new NHS logo. Everything must say "new" on it. Of course, there was not room to say "modern new NHS" on the logo. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will give us an idea of how much that will cost.
  Those are minor points, although they tell us much about the Government and about the rotten culture that is eating away at them. They have no concern for truth and are obsessed by their own image and spin. What really matters, however, is what they are doing to patient care.
  As the previous Secretary of State's adviser intimated, the Government themselves know that the waiting list initiative, one of the central parts of their policy, is deeply flawed, and distorting clinical priorities in our health care system. We have been told repeatedly by doctors throughout the country—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have heard it, and we have raised it here on several occasions—that clinical priorities are being distorted, with some of the sickest patients being made to wait longer while minor cases are moved up the list simply so that a bigger number are treated to make the figures look good for the sake of the politicians in Whitehall.
  To put that those remarks into context, I should like to focus on a single case. The wife of a patient in County Durham wrote that her husband had been having chest pains on the treadmill and when playing golf. He consulted his GP on 17 February 1999. When he first saw a consultant it was 28 April 1999, and he told him that he thought a bypass would be needed and referred him to
  1064
  South Cleveland hospital. He had an angiogram in September 1999. It was not until 22 March this year that he had a consultation with a consultant. In a letter dated 28 March, he was told
  the current waiting time for heart surgery is 12 months.
  Tragically, that lady's husband died on 26 May at the age of 53, still not having received any written confirmation of his operation.
  There is no way of knowing what will happen in any particular case—we all understand that—but the most important factor is that last year, 450 fewer cardiac bypass operations were carried out in the NHS than the year before—the first time in 25 years of the NHS carrying out those operations that there has been a fall, according to the cardiac register.
  Does it not say everything about the culture and the way in which the Government are running the NHS that they increase the number of minor procedures, yet the number of coronary bypasses is going down? It confirms everything that we have said about the Government's approach to health care, their lack of clinical priority and their obsession with political priority.
  Ms Julia Drown: The hon. Gentleman has outlined a sad case, but we could produce equally sad cases from when his party were in government. If he looks at what the Government have done, he will see a huge initiative on heart specialists. We know that there are not enough. The Secretary of State has talked to heart surgeons, has worked out what needs to be done and has said that the money and the beds will be there and that the medics will be trained, so that as soon as possible, we will get an NHS of the kind that the patients of this country need. Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that?
  Dr. Fox: To paraphrase the hon. Lady, things have not got any worse under the present Government—they are just as bad as they were before. That will come as bad news to the people who put her into Westminster, who were told that there were 24 hours in which to save the NHS. I suppose that we should all feel very reassured and can sleep safely in our beds knowing that, while the NHS is cutting the number of bypass operations, the Secretary of State has spoken to a couple of heart surgeons so it is all going to be fine.
  Several hon. Members: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: It is hard to choose from the chorus. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
  Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): Does my hon. Friend agree that most of the problem is that the Government should not be running the NHS? They should be funding and regulating it. Most of the problem is interference the whole time. Four thousand people work in my constituency hospital. They are sick to death of the Labour party treating the NHS as the Labour party poodle.
  Dr. Fox: I think that there is a role for politicians in regulating the NHS and deciding what we should get out of the service, but they should then allow managers and

  1065
  doctors to do what they are trained to do, which is manage the service and treat patients. To have politicians interfering at every level of the service, sending circulars minute by minute and meddling wherever conceivable, is the worst possible way to run any health care system. Ministers cannot micro-manage a system that employs 1 million people, and even if were possible for them to do so, it would not be desirable. Politicians should not be managing services; we have specially trained professionals to do that. It is up to the Secretary of State and his Ministers to regulate the system and allow people to get on with what they are trained to do.
  We are concerned about the effect of Government policy not only on individual patients but on hospitals. I have here a typical letter on a subject that is raised time and again as we go around the country: the increasing prevalence of hospital-acquired infections. It states:
  To get to the point, my father recently died in Wycombe General Hospital of a hospital-acquired infection, MRSA septicaemia—
  methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or the "superbug" to which the tabloids refer. The letter continues:
  My mother … discovered my father's pillow had a long faeces stain on it. She asked the nurses to remove it and was horrified to later find it under my father's head … Nurses have described this infection as 'the silent epidemic' … One killer fact you can throw back in Tony Blair's face is that 5,000 people a year die from hospital-acquired infections and 15,000 a year (this figure is on the increase) get infected in hospital with an infection that significantly contributes to their death. MRSA is now responsible for 37 per cent. of all cases of fatal septicaemias … tragically my father was one of those government statistics—and this is directly attributable to the filthy state of hospital wards. The rate of infection in NHS hospitals is 10 per cent. and in private hospitals it is only 1 per cent."
  The letter concludes:
  PS. The money spent on the recent NHS publicity stunt could have been better spent on some mops and disinfectant for hospitals.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about hospital-acquired infection. Perhaps he can tell the House whether he supports or opposes our setting standards for infection control in hospitals, or does he stick by his assertion that the Government should not be sending hospitals circulars about cleaning?
  Dr. Fox: Setting the quality of standards for all health care, in both the private and the state sector, is a legitimate role of Ministers. [Interruption.] If he could retain in his memory more than one line at a time, the Secretary of State would find that I said exactly that in another part of the speech that I gave yesterday in Glasgow.
  Perhaps the Minister of State would like to tell us why, after Labour has been in office for three years, only 10 per cent. of NHS hospitals have proper infection control plans and only 15 per cent. have infection control budgets. What have Ministers been doing for the past three years?
  Mr. Denham: We have been setting in place a system—[Interruption.] Calm down. In three years, we have ensured that every single hospital has an infection control team. That was not the case when we came to power three years ago. On the subject of setting standards, let me point out that the hon. Gentleman said:
  Ministers should not be issuing endless circulars on everything from cleaning to catering.
  1066
  He opposed having cleaning standards yesterday, but today he wants cleaning standards.
  Dr. Fox: Even given the level of distortion that we are used to from current Health Ministers, that was a particularly pathetic intervention. Apparently, the Government have spent three years putting together a piece of paper that tells hospitals to establish an infection control team. Any monkey with a typewriter could have produced one as quickly as that.
  Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): The Government are hypersensitive because the World Health Organisation has found that the national health service ranks 18th in the league of health organisations. Under this Government, we have a health service that is worse than that in Greece.
  Dr. Fox: I find no pleasure in the fact that the world's fourth largest economy has only the 18th best health care system. There are many reasons for that, far too many to go into now. I was rather surprised by the reaction of the Department of Health, which regarded the findings of the survey as something of a pleasant surprise. It seemed to believe that it would be further down the league than it was. That says a great deal about the Department's expectations for our health care system and its confidence in running the system.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Tipu Aziz, an internationally distinguished surgeon, who declares that he has supported the Labour party for more than 25 years, but that he now feels betrayed by that party because, as he sees it, morale in the national health service is at a lower level than he has ever seen in his professional life?
  Dr. Fox: My assessment is that Mr. Aziz will not be alone.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): Throughout health policy and social policy, is not the first tactic of the party which wants to destroy the health service to privatise it and to denigrate and destroy public services, reducing confidence in them and bringing them down in the eyes of the public?
  Dr. Fox: Given the few interventions that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make, he could surely have thought of a better one than that.
  Before coming to the House, I spent all my working life in the NHS, as a hospital doctor and as a general practitioner. In the days when the Secretary of State was running his "Days of Hope" bookshops supporting CND and selling Marxist international newspapers, I was one of those junior doctors working long hours for low pay. I do not need to be told by any Labour Member what dedication is like in the NHS and about the quality of members of the medical and nursing profession. I have

  1067
  seen that at first hand. I do not need to be changing my line on what works and does not in the NHS according to my level of preference for any political system.
  Ann Keen (Brentford and Isleworth): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I have given way nine or 10 times. Given the time constraints, I think that that is sufficient.
  Ann Keen rose—
  Dr. Fox: Let me say it slowly for the hon. Lady; I am not giving way.
  Next week, we are getting the Government's latest and greatest stunt so far—NHS week. We are told that there will be NHS Oscars and lots of good news stories. No doubt the press will be pinned down and subjugated to ensure that no one dares to utter a peep against the Government during that period. Ministers should understand that the Government's image is not the problem. Changing it, spending more money on PR and adding more spin will not improve the situation. The lack of substance is the problem.
  I will repeat what I said yesterday, because it is time the Opposition said what we want to see. We will transform the culture of the NHS by redefining the relationship between politicians and the management of the system. We aim to take the politics out of health care by changing the role of politicians altogether.
  We will maintain an NHS which is free at the point of use and which, as now, provides a comprehensive range of services, funded by the taxpayer. We reject the idea of an NHS core service alone on the grounds of equity.
  We intend to diminish the barriers between primary and secondary care and between the independent and state sectors to maximise partnership in all areas. We believe there should be a single regulatory framework based on the needs of the patient and not the needs of the care provider. We must ensure the safety and well-being of all patients wherever they are in the health care delivery system. Our watchwords should be quality, access and choice.
  We do not believe it is desirable for politicians to be involved in the detailed management of the state system. The Secretary of State's role will be to take a strategic view of total health care, to agree funding and guaranteed minimum standards of quality and to set public health priorities.
  We will abolish the Government's flawed waiting list target and adopt targets based on cure rates and survival rates, to bring them up to the level of our European counterparts. We need to place less importance on input and throughput targets. In defined clinical areas we will give a guarantee to patients that they will be given—
  Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton): Which treatments does the hon. Gentleman want paid for privately, rather than being free on the NHS?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We have had sufficient sedentary interventions.
  Dr. Fox: It hurts Government Back Benchers when they are forced to listen to the real words, rather than the
  1068
  distorted versions they get from their own Front Bench. I said that patients will be given a guaranteed specific maximum waiting time—
  Mr. Twigg rose—
  Dr. Fox: I will not give way again. I said that patients will be given a specific maximum waiting time for treatment decided by their consultant. It will be set specifically for their individual cases, not arbitrarily by politicians for the average patient. Good medicine is about seeing patients—
  Mr. Twigg rose—
  Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)rose—
  Mr. Ivan Lewis rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will not give way again. Hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Dr. Fox: Those of us who have been, and can expect to stay, in Parliament more than one term know what it means when Government Back Benchers feel that they have continually to heckle those on the Opposition Front Bench. That shows that they are rattled and know we are telling the truth. What is more, our claims chime with the real experience of the public—who know that health care has got worse under the current Government.
  I thought that we were moving towards some sort of consensus on public-private partnership. On BBC's "Newsnight", no less a person than the man in charge of the health service—the Prime Minister—said:
  There is absolutely no ideological barrier to using private beds. If there is a policy which prevents this, it should be removed. I will look into this.
  That was interesting because it is not what we have been hearing from the Secretary of State this week. Two weeks ago, he took the same line when the soundbites were being dictated by No. 10, rather than Millbank. Rodney Bickerstaffe, the general secretary of one of the main unions, said on BBC's "Question Time":
  We want to abolish the private sector altogether. I would love to see it go altogether
  Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): Absolutely.
  Dr. Fox: At least the hon. Gentleman is honest. He wants the private sector abolished. I applaud him for having the honesty to say what many of his colleagues believe.
  If the private sector—in which 1 million surgical procedures, or 20 per cent. of the total, are carried out each year—were abolished and did not exist, it would cost between £8 billion and £10.5 billion to have all those procedures done by the NHS. Do Labour Members want everything done on the health service? If so, do they want to use all the extra money and more—or do they want NHS patients to wait longer?
  Every country in the developed western world has a proper partnership between the state and private sectors. In all the countries of Europe in which the Prime Minister

  1069
  takes his free holidays, his socialist friends in charge of health services understand the need for partnership. My greatest problem with the Secretary of State is that he said in response to the World Health Organisation report:
  we are not prepared to trade off being free and fair for efficiency and responsiveness to the demands of patients.
  Leaving aside the fact that postcode rationing is hardly fair, who believes that one has to trade off a fair and free service for efficiency or responsiveness, or that the two are mutually exclusive? A free and fair service can be efficient and responsive. The Secretary of State was giving away the fact that he does not understand the concept of choice. He does not believe that doctors or patients should be free to choose. He thinks that they should stand in line like Dickensian paupers having gruel given out to them and be thankful, irrespective of the second-rate care they are getting.
  We all remember it; voters remember it—"24 hours to save the NHS", "Things can only get better", "Modernise, not privatise". We have heard it a thousand times. It is meaningless, vacuous drivel.
  This is a Government with no substance, scared of their own shadow, obsessed with their image, driven by ego, incapable of taking difficult decisions—a Government afraid to govern. Their twisted priorities mean that the sickest patients get pushed down the queue or die, while more minor cases get moved up to make the figures look better. The Government are spending money preparing for the euro, while our hospitals get filthier. They speak about a national plan, but have no moral authority to call themselves national in any sense.
  The best way to expose the situation is to quote from a letter from a GP in Wolverhampton, who writes:
  I am a G.P. in Wolverhampton. I went straight from a State School to Cambridge University, much the same background as some of the Labour Government's M.P.s, though I gather some went from public school, a privilege my farming parents could not afford for me.
  The GP continues:
  I thought the Labour Government would reward our changes … I have never felt like resigning from the N.H.S. before. I knew that Labour would not change the N.H.S. and education as per election promise, but I never expected to be blamed myself for their failure.
  The letter goes on:
  I am disgusted with Mr. Milburn's lack of respect for me and my team. You have got to get this across to him, he has to stop bashing doctors and the N.H.S. just because Labour hasn't delivered. All our efforts … are rubbished by him.
  I met Mr. Dobson. I believe he was "passionately" committed to the N.H.S. which is why Mr. Blair got rid of him when he realised that Doctor-bashing was the political answer to their problems.
  I am now worried that I will leave the N.H.S. if Labour is returned at the next election. I fear that other forward-thinking practitioners who have that option will also go. This will wreck Primary Care. My patients and others need to know the consequence of voting Labour. Tell them. I will tell my patients.
  What an indictment. What a disgrace. What a betrayal! "New and modern"? Labour have been rumbled for the self-satisfied, smug, hypocritical, bullying, shallow, soundbite-ridden and vacuous scam of a Government that they are. They should start counting their days.
  1.57 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:
  `welcomes the decision to prepare a National Plan for the NHS in England, bringing together doctors, nurses, patients' organisations and others working in the NHS to set out priorities for the modernisation of the NHS; welcomes the largest sustained increase in funding in the history of the NHS; and rejects the use of taxpayers' money to subsidise private medical insurance.'
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has got that off his chest. This debate on priorities in the national health service is very welcome, for a simple reason: it will reveal the clearest of differences between the policies of the Government and those of the Conservative party. For two decades they ran the national health service. They failed to invest in it or to modernise it.
  For three years, the Government's priority has been to lay the foundations for a modernised national health service. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what our priorities have been. First, we have been getting more doctors into the NHS as a priority. That is why there are 4,780 more doctors since we came to office. We have almost 500 extra GPs and 4,300 more hospital doctors.
  By 2005, we will have increased the number of medical school places by more than 1,100—a 20 per cent. increase, and the biggest for a generation—and established two new medical schools, the first for 25 years. The hon. Gentleman always says that he wants more real doctors, rather than more spin doctors. That is precisely what we are providing.
  Dr. Fox: How many consultants took early retirement from the NHS last year, and was it a record?
  Mr. Milburn: I do not know those figures, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I can tell him that we are getting more consultants working in the NHS, and there will be more consultants working in the NHS.
  Secondly, we have made getting more nurses into the NHS a priority. That is why there are now 5,000 more nurse training places than when we came to office. I remind the Opposition that when we came to office, the number of nurse training places had been cut by them. Now the numbers are rising. There are 10,770 extra qualified nurses working in the NHS—an increase since we came to power. Last year, the increase in nurse numbers was the highest for seven years.
  Thirdly, we have made treating more patients in the NHS a priority. The NHS now carries out 500,000 more operations each year, sees 400,000 more patients as first out-patient appointments and treats 300,000 more emergency cases.
  In May 1997, waiting list figures were rising, and were at a record level. Today, the figures are down by more than 100,000. Last year, there was a fall in both in-patient and out-patient waiting list numbers for the first time ever.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Woodspring made much of distorting numbers and distorting the truth. I wish that he would concentrate on the genuine figures, and the truth about the number of heart

  1071
  operations. He alleges that the number of heart operations decreased in the last year for which we have figures. That is not true. In 1997–98, there were 21,110 coronary artery bypass grafts. The following year—when the hon. Gentleman claims that the numbers fell—they increased by approximately 1,300 to 22,494. The hon. Member for Woodspring and other Conservative Members should give fewer lessons on distorting the truth.
  Mr. Burns: On the Secretary of State's claims about falling waiting lists, will he tell me in straightforward language why 8,391 were waiting for hospital treatment in the Mid Essex hospital trust area on 31 March 1997, whereas the latest figures show sthat 9,953 people are waiting? Why have not the numbers on waiting lists fallen in the past three years?
  Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number for in-patients has fallen by 100,000. The number of out-patients waiting for treatment remains too high—that is undeniable—but it is falling. Last year, for the first time since records began, the number of in-patients and the number of out-patients waiting for treatment fell at the same time.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that performance varies across the NHS. I cannot micro-manage the North Essex trust, if that is the relevant trust. Management is up to individual managers and clinicians. If the hon. Gentleman, as the local representative, is so worried about the matter, he should take up the trust's performance with the people who are responsible for it.
  Dr. Stoate: My right hon. Friend promised to present a clear contrast between the Government's priorities and those of the Conservative party. How is that possible when the Conservative party has not yet identified its priorities?
  Mr. Milburn: If my hon. Friend has a little patience, I shall come to the Conservative party's priorities. To give him a little taster, I can tell him now that Conservative Members' priorities are not to modernise the NHS. They want to spend public money on subsidising the costs of private health insurers. That is their priority; the hon. Member for Woodspring told John Humphrys that on "On the Record" on Sunday. He also told the NHS Confederation in Glasgow yesterday that that was Conservative policy.
  The hon. Gentleman has trouble remembering what he said from one day to the next. Yesterday, he said in his speech in Glasgow that it was not right to send out health service circulars on clean hospitals; today, he claims that it is right. I assume that he abides by his comments on BBC television, and that Conservative party policy is to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money not on modernising the NHS, but on subsidising more and more people to go private. That is the Conservative party's priority, but it is not that of this party.
  Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon): Doubtless my right hon. Friend will agree with John Humphrys' remarks in The Sunday Times last week, when he described Conservative party polices as wishful thinking.
  Mr. Milburn: I do not always agree with John Humphrys, and I did not see the article to which my
  1072
  hon. Friend refers. Whether the Conservative party's policy is wishful thinking is a secondary consideration. What counts is who can be trusted with this country's health service. People will decide that in the forthcoming general election.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way in a moment. It is time not only to judge the Conservative party on its past record, but on its promises for the future.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Will the Secretary of State explain why he has changed the guidelines on hospital transport? The change means that an 84-year-old woman with angina was able to get an ambulance to take her to hospital, but was not allowed an ambulance to take her home. That is a disgraceful way in which to treat our elderly people. Will the Secretary of State examine the guidelines as a matter of urgency?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall look at the guidelines, although I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. As he and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)— who really ought to calm down as I may give way to him if he behaves himself—should be aware, the Government are investing extra money in patient transport. More money is going to improve and modernise ambulance services, to get response times down and to make sure that patient transport is available. Of course I will look into the hon. Gentleman's concerns if he writes to me with the details.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more interesting than the comments of John Humphrys are the comments of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State for Social Security, when he said this month:
  My departure from the front bench followed a high-octane row about my affirmation that there are distinct limits to the scope for private provision in healthcare. I trust no-one suspects me of plotting wholesale privatisation.
  What does my right hon. Friend think that says about those who remain on the Opposition Front Bench?
  Mr. Milburn: It says quite simply that they have won the argument within the Conservative party. There were one-nation Tories in charge of the Conservative party, but now they are all on the Back Benches or they have left this place. The people who are in charge of the Conservative party today are like the hon. Member for Woodspring, who rightly described himself as an ardent Thatcherite free-marketeer. That is what he is, and proud of it, and it is about time that the British people understood the implications of that sort of policy for the national health service.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that the party will be judged at the time of the general election. He knows that a number of hospitals and services in my constituency are under threat. The South Staffordshire health authority is conducting a review. He knows that as we have discussed the matter at Health questions. Why has the regional health authority told the South

  1073
  Staffordshire health authority to delay any final decisions on closures of hospitals and services in my constituency until after the next general election?
  Mr. Milburn: I do not know when the next general election will be, and I guess that the regional office of the NHS does not know when it will be. The hon. Gentleman has asked a question so I shall try to give him a helpful answer.
  Mr. Fabricant: Think quickly.
  Mr. Milburn: I shall heed that advice, which is always gratefully received. Perhaps it could apply to those on the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members.
  Consultation is taking place in the hon. Gentleman's area. It will continue and the hon. Gentleman should participate in it, as I expect that his views will be listened to. However, the Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it. The hon. Member for Woodspring, who speaks for the Conservative party on these issues, is urging me not to micro-manage the national health service and not to get involved in local decisions. I agree with him on that. He is absolutely right. We want to make sure that the people on the ground have the tools and the resources to do the job. However, Conservative Members should not then ask me to intervene in each and every case. Those on the Conservative Front Bench, and those on the Conservative Back Benches, should really get their act together.
  We have made rebuilding the fabric of the national health service a priority—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) would stop chuntering to himself. Accident and emergency departments in 182 hospitals are being expanded and refurbished, 1,000 GP surgeries are being modernised—[Interruption.] Keep taking the tablets.
  By the end of the year, 36 walk-in centres will be open, and by next April, we will have created nearly 500 additional secure beds for people with severe mental illness. A new hospital in Carlisle has already been opened.
  Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the previous Government, the new hospital in my constituency was cancelled four times even though the premises of one of our hospitals was the old Victorian workhouse? Within three months of the Labour Government coming to power, the project was given approval and the new hospital was opened in April on budget, and ahead of time. That is the difference between the Tory Government and the Labour Government.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  Liz Blackman (Erewash): Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Milburn: Let me answer my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and then I shall give way. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people of Carlisle, the community in north Cumbria and, indeed, my hon. Friend have campaigned assiduously and put a very strong case for a new hospital in their city. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to open the new hospital. I shall read out the list in
  1074
  a moment or two, but I can tell my hon. Friend that it will not be the last new hospital to be opened this year, next year or the year after.
  Some 21 other major hospital developments are already under construction, and those in Dartford, Rochdale and south Buckinghamshire will be finished this year—the hon. Member for Buckingham might wish to jump up and congratulate the Government. Five more hospitals will be completed next year and nine more the year after. That is the biggest hospital building programme that the NHS has ever seen.
  Liz Blackman: My right hon. Friend mentioned the new hospital in Carlisle. Some 40 years ago, I had my appendix out in that old Victorian workhouse, so the people of Carlisle have waited a long time for their new hospital—and this Government have delivered it.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. It is true that communities up and down the country have waited many years for the new hospitals that are now coming on stream. I remind the House that when the Conservatives were in office, they managed to spend £30 million on lawyers' and accountants' fees for PFI hospitals, but they did not get a single new hospital built. We have changed that.
  Dr. Brand: For the sake of completeness, can the Secretary of State tell us what has been the effective reduction in bed availability as a consequence of the PFI projects that have resulted in those new hospitals?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we announced the first wave of new hospital building under the PFI arrangements—including Carlisle and Dartford, I believe—we carried out a comparison between the public sector and the PFI option to get the best value for the taxpayer. Indeed, we will proceed with any of the schemes under the PFI option only if it offers better value for money. In some cases, we will not proceed with PFI on value for money grounds if we think that Exchequer capital can produce a better deal for the taxpayer than the private finance option.
  When we compare the number of beds available under PFI with the number available under the public sector comparator option in the first wave schemes, the number barely differs. In fact, my recollection is that the number of beds overall is slightly higher under the PFI option than it is under the public sector comparator option. Therefore, the idea that PFI is reducing the number of beds in the system is wrong.
  Over many years, especially under the previous Government, the number of hospital beds declined markedly. Some 40,000 beds disappeared in the Conservatives' last 10 years in office alone. I have said many times that that decline has gone too far, and we now need to see an increase in the number of beds in the system. We have an opportunity to achieve that, given the resources that we are making available.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I realise that he does not represent south Buckinghamshire.
  Mr. Bercow: I am glad that the Secretary of State recognises that, among other things, he needs a lesson in

  1075
  geography, because my constituency is in north, not south Buckinghamshire. Will he now explain why he is cowering behind NICE—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? Why, in the consideration of the supply of beta interferon, is he refusing to take account of the cost of the domestic adaptations required in the absence of the supply of that drug, and why does he think that it is right and proper to deny the additional 50 patients each week who are diagnosed as suffering from a chronically debilitating disease the prospect of some alleviation through the supply of that crucial drug?
  Mr. Milburn: There is no argument about multiple sclerosis being a deeply debilitating disease. Every hon. Member understands that, and also understands that there is no cure for MS. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not sheltering behind NICE. As I understand the position from the speech by the hon. Member for Woodspring yesterday—if it is still Conservative policy today—the Conservatives now support the role of NICE in the assessment of both cost and clinical effectiveness.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham knows that NICE is assessing beta interferon. It is supposed to be a confidential process, as the drug companies preferred. NICE conducts its own appraisals in the way that it decides is best. The appraisal committee has met and made a provisional appraisal which has been leaked, unfortunately. It is not, nor will it ever be, the Government's intention to comment on leaks or provisional assessments from the appraisal committee. We will see what NICE comes up with, and I do not doubt that it will take the views of MS sufferers and others fully into account in reaching a final decision and making recommendations.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to clarify the point. We believe that NICE has a role in exactly the areas he outlined—cost and clinical effectiveness. That was agreed by both sides of the House when the Bill was in Committee. The trouble is that the Government sneaked affordability in, by statutory instrument, as another criterion for NICE. It is not equipped to deal with that criterion, nor does it want to have to assess it, but that is the arm's-length rationing mechanism for Ministers who do not have the courage to take the decisions overtly and transparently.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman knows well that that is not the case. There is the clearest of differences between an assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness—which, from his speech yesterday, he now supports—[Interruption.] NICE will make decisions based on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and it will have to assess the drugs and treatments according to whether—for the amount of money available—they offer a clinical benefit to patients. Decisions on affordability are decisions for the NHS, not for NICE. That is precisely what the establishment order makes clear.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): On the point that the Secretary of State has just explained so precisely, can he tell the House why, if affordability is not to be taken into consideration by NICE, the House passed a statutory
  1076
  instrument last year that made a change in the criteria to be applied by NICE? That change was sneaked in last August when the House was not sitting.
  Mr. Milburn: Sometimes I wonder why I bother. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I am pleased that the Tories are glad about something. I have just explained why we made the amendment to the establishment order. It was precisely to clarify that NICE has a role in assessing not only for clinical effectiveness but—as the hon. Member for Woodspring and his party now agree—for cost-effectiveness. As I understand it, there is no argument about that. Decisions about affordability are a separate issue for the NHS. [Interruption.] I have tried to explain it twice and if the hon. Lady does not understand, that says more about her than about the explanation.
  We have invested more money in the NHS as a priority, which will mean the largest sustained increase in funding in the history of the NHS. It will be twice the historic growth trend in NHS spending, up from 3 per cent. under the Conservatives to more than 6 per cent. under Labour. By 2004, the NHS will grow by more than one third in real terms, and more than 50 per cent. in cash terms.
  Our immediate priorities for the NHS have been more doctors; more nurses; modern hospitals; more patients treated; and more money invested. Not every problem has been solved, but a start has been made on turning round the NHS after decades of neglect. Those priorities have been underpinned by the changes we have made to tackle the two-tier system of care that we inherited. First and foremost, we have abolished the hated and divisive internal market foisted on the NHS by the Conservatives. In its place, we have put the primary care groups and primary care trusts, with control of local health services now in the hands of the people who know patients' needs best.
  This year alone, the primary care groups—front-line doctors and nurses—are in charge of a budget of over £20 billion. That is not what the hon. Member for Woodspring calls an act of centralisation: it is the biggest-ever decentralisation in the history of the health service.
  The motion accuses the Government, as did the hon. Member for Woodspring, of day-to-day political interference in the management of the NHS. The hon. Gentleman cited the number of circulars issued by the Department of Health to the health service. For the benefit of the House, I shall describe what the circulars are. Essentially, they are instructions from Ministers to NHS trusts and primary care groups.
  I have some interesting figures about the extent of so-called day-to-day political interference in the work of the local NHS. In 1996, the final year of the previous Conservative Government, the then Secretary of State for Health issued a grand total of 305 explicit instructions to the national health service. Since I have been Secretary of State, I have issued a total of 21 explicit instructions to the national health service. What is more, I have set a cap on the number of such instructions to be issued from Richmond house to local health services. This year, no more than 100 health service circulars will be issued by Ministers to the local health service—and I expect the total to be far lower than that.

  1077
  I hope that that puts an end to talk about political interference in the national health service. If any party was guilty of that, it was the Conservative party.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): Is not it correct that the modernisation fund, which is worth £0.5 billion a year, is entirely in the hands of Ministers, to be used at their discretion? A quarter of the beds at the Royal Surrey hospital have been cut over the past two and a half years. Senior civil servants recommended that £2.5 million be given to that hospital, but the Secretary of State personally cut that allocation to just £1 million. Will he say why he did that? If that is not political interference, what is?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall deal with ring-fenced funding for coronary heart disease and cancer in a moment. I make no apology for setting tough national standards for the national health service. Anyone who takes even the most cursory look at the NHS will realise that, all too often, the care that people get and the services that they receive depend on where they live. That is unfair. It is unacceptable, and it has to change.
  That is why we have created the first-ever independent inspectorate for the NHS, the Commission for Health Improvement, to drive up standards of care for all patients. It is also why we set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and it is why we have been working with doctors, nurses and managers to draw up clear national standards to treat and prevent the biggest killers that our country faces—coronary heart disease and cancer. National standards for treatment have also been drawn up for mental health problems.
  It is worth reminding the House that, when we came to office, there were no such standards for tackling heart disease, even though Britain has one of the worst records of heart disease in the developed world. Today, those standards are in place. A national service framework has been established which commands the confidence of the service and which sets out a clear, 10-year programme of reform and improvement. It is a blueprint for change which is backed by £100 million of ring-fenced cash. That money will be used to pay for 3,000 more heart operations, cut ambulance waiting times and set up fast-track chest pain clinics. In addition, smokers will be helped to give up smoking, rather than just being exhorted to do so.
  Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): May I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for making a difference in my constituency, which has one of the highest rates of death from heart attacks and strokes in the country? In nearly 20 years under the Conservative Government, my district general was almost unique in having no dedicated coronary care unit. The hospital now has £800,000 to invest in a coronary care unit. It is moving its intensive care beds out of the portakabin that has housed them for years. It also has £3.5 million for a new accident and emergency department. Will not that deliver better help for the appalling health record of the people of Slough?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Frankly, it is a bit rich of the Opposition to cry crocodile tears over heart patients. There is no argument but that waiting times for heart operations are too long, but we are going to get them down. The waiting lists are too long for
  1078
  a self-evident reason—under that lot, there was no national plan for coronary heart disease, and inadequate training meant that we had too few cardiologists and cardio-thoracic surgeons. As a result, in today's national health service, there are only 171 surgeons capable of doing heart operations.
  That is the legacy of the previous Conservative Government, not of this Government. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that, over the next five or six years, we will increase the number of doctors capable of carrying out heart operations by between 50 and 60 per cent. That will be an investment in the future. Like everyone else, I wish that the increase could be accomplished faster, but we must make no bones about who were responsible for today's long waiting times for heart operations. They are the people who failed to invest in heart surgery yesterday—the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman, who should not point his finger at me like that. It is most rude.
  I do not say that we have solved all the problems the NHS faces, but we have made a start. The policies of the Conservative party would take the NHS back instead of moving it forward. There could not be a clearer contrast between the priorities of this Government and those of the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring gave an infamous speech to his party conference which has become known as his "NHS plc" speech. He said:
  The biggest problem that we have in the NHS is that it is not a proper market.
  Given that the Opposition see that as the biggest problem, I can only assume that it is their biggest priority too. We know now that they intend to tackle it by using public money to subsidise and expand the private medical insurance market.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring confirmed this week that the Conservatives would spend £468 million subsidising employer-based private medical insurance. That is their policy and it is on the record—but it is just the start. On at least four occasions this year—twice in January, once in March and once in April—the Leader of the Opposition has repeated his commitment to introducing tax relief for individuals in private medical insurance schemes, as well as for those in employer-based private schemes.
  The total cost of that policy could come to £1 billion. That would more than dwarf this year's pay rise for nurses, and all the investment that the Government are making in casualty departments. The resources that we have prioritised for the NHS would be frittered away in tax perks for people who already have private medical insurance—and all in the name of creating what the hon. Member for Woodspring calls a "proper market".
  It is no good for Conservative Members to claim that that spending would be additional to matching our commitment to big increases in the NHS budget. They are spending money that they have not got. The Opposition's tax guarantee, their refusal to support tobacco taxation being ring-fenced for the NHS and their extension of tax

  1079
  perks for private medical insurance mean that they could not even hope to match the Government's spending on the NHS.
  The Opposition cannot match our commitment to modernisation, so they are forced to prioritise their real policy. That is not to modernise the national health service, but to privatise it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Conservative Members say that that is rubbish, but the hon. Member for Woodspring has said that he wants more patients to be pushed into paying for treatment and for what he calls non-urgent operations.
  Dr. Fox indicated dissent.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what he told The Sunday Times in January—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that the Secretary of State is not giving way at the moment.
  Mr. Milburn: If they stopped shouting at me, I might give way. In an interview with The Sunday Times in January, the hon. Member for Woodspring said that
  hip and knee replacements, and cataract and hernia operations
  were at the top of his hit list. Whenever I have challenged the hon. Gentleman about that interview, in the House and elsewhere, he has always denied it and said that he was misquoted. I give him the opportunity to put the record straight today.
  Dr. Fox: I have made it perfectly clear that if people choose to go privately, it is up to them. Yesterday, I said explicitly:
  It is not important to us where treatment is carried out—simply that it is carried out in the appropriate time and of the appropriate quality. We must also ensure that the system works effectively to deal with debilitating if not life-threatening conditions such as patients requiring hip replacements or cataract surgery. One of the solutions is to have stand-alone surgical units dedicated to these procedures without the pressures of having to deal with emergencies. It is an attractive idea which I hope the Government might include in the national plan.
  It could not be much clearer.
  Mr. Milburn: The House will note that despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman claims that he has been misquoted by The Sunday Times, he did not use that opportunity to say that he was misquoted. He does not withdraw what he told The Sunday Times, published on 18 January. The House will be interested in that—as will, I suspect, The Sunday Times.
  If the hon. Member for Woodspring does not agree with himself, I wonder whether he agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). In January, the hon. Gentleman said on Sky News—live on air—that the system that the Conservatives were advocating meant
  people would look to the NHS to provide them with service when they had serious, life-threatening conditions—
  1080
  and we have no argument about that. He went on to say that people
  would look to their private insurance to help them with those things where the NHS has to ask them to wait a little bit longer.
  Is this another case of the hon. Gentleman being misquoted? Did he misquote himself? Does he stand by those remarks—yes or no?
  Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): I stand by those remarks entirely. Even the Secretary of State acknowledges that people in this country have a right to buy private health insurance. That is their choice and their right. Does the Secretary of State prefer a model in which people try to opt out of the NHS, buying private medical insurance that will cover all their needs? Or does he think it is a better model to have private health insurance products that are complementary to the NHS, so that people will look to the NHS for their serious and life-threatening conditions and turn to private insurance, if they have it, for those conditions
  where the NHS has to ask them to wait a little bit longer?
  Mr. Milburn: I can feel a general election campaign coming on—I can feel it in my bones. I can see the leaflets and the party political broadcasts. There we have it, from the lips of the hon. Gentleman; the authentic voice of today's Conservative party. The Conservatives are no longer committed to getting waiting times down for everybody in the NHS; they are committed to extending waiting times in the NHS. They are committed to taking non-urgent operations out of the NHS altogether. [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said.
  Let me tell the House exactly what those non-urgent operations are. Some 1.2 million took place in the NHS in England in 1998–99. More than 300,000 of them were carried out on pensioners. A quarter of a million were general surgery operations and a further quarter of a million were orthopaedics. Just under 200,000 were eye operations and more than 100,000 were gynaecological operations. The priority of the Conservative party could not be clearer: a two-tier health care system with fast-track treatment for those who can afford to pay and second-rate treatment for those who cannot. Those might be the Conservative party's priorities, but I tell the House that they are not the Government's priorities.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Secretary of State tell us how many patients forced out of the NHS to buy their entire treatments in the private sector did not have private insurance last year?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are two trends in the private health care market. There is one trend for private health insurance that is basically flat, although I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to bump it up and spend taxpayers' money doing so. He would rather spend £400 million on subsidising people for their private medical insurance than invest it in precisely the areas that Labour Members would recognise as priorities.
  There is a rise in the number of so-called "self-payers"; people who decide to pay for their own care. That is true. I was asked whether I thought people should have a choice. Fine—they should have a choice, but it should be a genuine choice with a first-class national health service,

  1081
  not just in some parts of the country, but in every part. That does not mean shorter waiting times for some treatments, but shorter waiting times for every treatment.
  Mr. Burns indicated assent.
  Mr. Milburn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is nodding so enthusiastically, and I can let him into a little secret; that is not the position of his Front-Bench colleagues.
  Dr. Fox: Does the Secretary of State think that those 160,000 patients who, last year, paid entirely for their own care—many from out of their life savings—for operations such as cardiac surgery or major orthopaedic procedures, did so because they wanted to have that choice or because they were forced to do so by the unacceptable waiting times in the NHS, for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman assiduously quotes his own medical experience. He will know at least as well as I do how many years it takes to train a cardio-thoracic surgeon. Could he remind me? How many years is it? Is it three years? Or is it seven or 10 years? Who was in power seven or 10 years ago? I will let him into another little secret—it was not a Labour Government, but a Conservative Government. The failures that we see now in our heart surgery services have everything to do with the failure by the previous Conservative Government to invest, plan and modernise. That is the case and however much the hon. Gentleman may wish to dismiss it, he knows that as well as I do.
  I have described the Opposition's priorities, but they are not our priorities. Within four weeks, the Government will publish our national plan for the NHS. It will set out our national priorities for reforming the national health service. The national plan will be both radical and reforming. It will make clear that the nation's priorities are more doctors and more nurses, not more markets. Our priority is to expand the national health service; the Conservative party's priority is to extend the private medical insurance market.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I will not give way. I have given way on countless occasions and, frankly, every one was a waste of time.
  Our priority is to reduce waiting times for all conditions. The Conservatives' priority is to increase waiting times for many conditions. Our priority is the opportunity for all to have a decent health service. Their priority is to waste NHS resources on subsidising the private medical insurance industry.
  The national plan will deliver on our priorities for a bigger, better NHS, treating more patients more quickly. Those are the priorities for the NHS. They are the priorities for Britain. I believe that they are the priorities of the British people. From what we have heard today, we now know that they are certainly not the priorities of the Conservative party.
  2.38 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing this debate on priorities in the NHS. It is an important issue and a timely moment for the House to debate the matter, as we are a few weeks away from a national plan that will point the way for the NHS in years to come. Everybody in the Chamber will recognise that there is a still great deal to be done to improve our national health service and certainly that perception is shared by the general public.
  The 1980s and 1990s saw a decline in the NHS, as it was starved of investment. The decline is demonstrated by the waiting culture which continues to bedevil the service. The public are increasingly aware and concerned about waiting lists and times, increases in the number of operations cancelled and poor access to appropriate drugs in certain areas. However, those are merely symptoms. The causes have been the dwindling number of health care professionals, too few staffed beds and the deteriorating state of equipment and buildings. At the start of the 21st century, the service is slow and often unresponsive to patients' needs.
  The principal problem with the national health service is lack of capacity. There are too few doctors, too few nurses and other health professionals, too few hospitals, too few beds and not enough modern equipment. These are the problems that bedevil us, and which come to light all too clearly in circumstances such as the flu crisis last winter. Not having the capacity to cope with the sudden upsurge in the numbers needing to use the health service brought all sorts of problems.
  In the midst of that crisis, the Prime Minister outlined his goal of seeing spending on health in the United Kingdom increase to the European average. In March, the Chancellor committed new sums of money to the health service. We welcome that money; in some cases, we feel that it comes with too many strings attached, but it is clear that, in committing these resources, the Government recognise the scale of the problems that need to be addressed.
  Our criticism is that if the Government had started making such an investment, and had called together the stakeholders in the health service to formulate their national plan—which they are now doing—when they first came to office three years ago, the dividends from that investment would now be starting to show. At the most rudimentary level, if more nurses had started training in 1997, they would be qualifying this summer and could help tackle the problems. However, better late than never—I think that the Government have been absolutely right to sit the stakeholders in the NHS round a table to discuss what they believe to be the way forward.
  When I listened to the hon. Member for Woodspring talk about political interference, I could not help but look at the contrast between the process in which the Government are currently engaged and the manner in which the previous Government's health reforms were steamrollered through in the early 1990s as they ignored all the warnings that were given and refused to carry out any pilot studies. The Government's stance is in marked contrast, and is a welcome change in approach and emphasis. It gives us an opportunity to consider what the basic principles of the NHS should be for the next 50 years.

  1083
  The NHS has been well served by the original founding principles outlined by the great Liberal, Beveridge, and implemented by the post-war Labour Government. The first of these principles, in my view, is that the NHS should remain free at the point of need and paid for out of general taxation. The principles have ensured that the NHS has survived 50 years in which it has often been deprived of the resources that it needed and has suffered all sorts of experimentation and tinkering. That the NHS still exists is testament to the fact that people in Britain still regard it as their most valued institution.
  Let me nail the Liberal Democrat colours to the mast on this first key principle. We believe that a tax-based NHS is sustainable; we believe that a tax-based NHS should be the route to expanded health care, not increases in private health insurance. A tax-based system is fairer and more efficient than a system based on continental social insurance or on private health insurance. At its most basic, the British people will get more health bangs for their buck through the NHS than through privately funded health care.
  Britain cannot afford to encourage cheap provision without the promise of quality. We cannot afford to promote health care predicated on profit, and we will not accept quality of life dictated by quantity of wealth. That is what private insurance would mean to the poor, the elderly and the disfranchised of this country.
  Mrs. Gorman: What would the hon. Gentleman say to an elderly person going into one of our national health hospitals whose card is marked "not to be resuscitated" when, under the previous Government, that person could at least have taken out private medical back-up because tax relief was allowed on it? Such a situation is deplorable.
  Mr. Harvey: I am sure that everybody deplores what the hon. Lady describes, but it is an issue of clinical practice and needs to be addressed as such. To suggest that it is pre-eminently a matter of resources is wrong. The situation that she describes is scandalous, but it is not principally driven by resources.
  Let me make it clear that the Liberal Democrats have no difficulty with the private sector playing a growing role on the supply side. If those in the NHS who commission care or subcontract it think that they can, in particular circumstances, get better value for money from some element of private sector provision, or if there are temporary capacity problems with which they think that the private sector can help the national health service, so much the better. There is no problem with that. However, that is a world apart from diverting resources that could be used in the national health service into subsidising private insurance for those who, in most cases, already have it.
  Over the past year, the Australian Government have offered a rebate to all those taking out private health insurance. In the first nine months, they spent $2.2 billion—nearly £1 billion—on a population a third the size of ours. At the end of that exercise, the number of people taking up private insurance went up by all of 0.9 per cent. For goodness sake, that money could have been used in the Australian health system. The Australian Government have done the equivalent of going into the
  1084
  street, picking up a drain hatch and pouring the money down it. If they had wanted to spend that money on health, they could have done it by subsidising the supply side of the private sector. At least they would then have had something to show for it.
  The situation in Australia is no different from the situation here. During the 1990s, when the previous Government offered tax incentives to people above retirement age to take out insurance, that had barely any impact on the numbers doing so, and when this Government removed that provision, there was barely any drop-off. This is a dead-weight subsidy to people who already have the insurance.
  The Conservatives maintain that that money would not come out of the national health service. I am not about to pre-empt or judge what their costed manifesto will say at the next election. However, wherever the money is coming from, it could have gone into the national health service. There is no way in which the British taxpayer or the NHS patient will get better value for that money by diverting it into private health insurance for people who already have it.
  The Liberal Democrats are perfectly relaxed about private sector involvement on the supply side, but we do not believe that taxpayers' money should be used artificially to stimulate the growth of private health insurance. We do not believe that that will give the British taxpayer value for money.
  Sir Raymond Whitney (Wycombe): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of countries in western Europe and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have health outcomes—as they are called in the jargon—that are significantly better than those that we achieve? If he accepts that, does he agree that it is worth considering the funding methods adopted by those other countries?
  Mr. Harvey: It is fair to say that many other countries have better health outcomes. In our view, that is because they spend a greater proportion of their gross domestic product on health than we do. We believe, for the reasons that I have just outlined, that the way for us to get the British spend as a proportion of GDP up is through greater investment in the national health service. That will secure better value, pound for pound, than using it artificially to stimulate the private insurance market. That is our firm belief, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to disagree with it.
  Dr. Stoate: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that America, the largest economy in the world, which spends almost twice as much of its GDP on health as we do but almost entirely in the private sector, has rather worse outcomes than us in most health measures? Does that not illustrate the point that he was making earlier?
  Mr. Harvey: The amount that the Americans spend is extraordinary. They spend more even on their state-funded health system than we do, but the fact that so many people in the USA still choose to invest in the private market does not seem to bring about the improvement in outcomes that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) suggested that it might.
  Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the position of his party on value

  1085
  for money, as articulated by his leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), is simply to pour more and more money into the health service, with no regard for modernisation or change? The right hon. Gentleman has made that clear on many occasions and the hon. Gentleman is making it clear now. Is he not simply talking about putting in more and more money, not about modernisation and change in terms of best delivery and equal access?
  Mr. Harvey: I have never heard our party leader say anything of the kind. I have made it clear on innumerable occasions that Liberal Democrats want modernisation, investment and, indeed, reconstruction for the national health service. The consultation that is continuing and the formulation of a national plan are a sensible way to try to do that and Liberal Democrats are contributing ideas in a submission to the Government as to what the national plan ought to be about and ought to do. I will say something about that in a few minutes.
  Dr. Brand: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why we criticised the Government was that they did not take an opportunity to evaluate what may or may not be useful initiatives. NHS Direct is a good example. There was no report on its pilot stage until it was rolled out across the country. We do not know the effectiveness of £80 million of public expenditure.
  Mr. Harvey: That is right. Clearly, we need a combination of additional investment, modernisation and reform. As I have said, we are largely in agreement with many aspects of the modernisation that the Government have undertaken. We think that the reforms in primary care were basically right. We do not necessarily agree with some of the details—we might not have given doctors a majority on the boards—but nevertheless we agreed with the general thrust of the reorganisation.
  Again, barring the point that the Conservatives made earlier about affordability seemingly being added to the criteria after the event, we were broadly in favour of the formation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, ditto the Commission for Health Improvement. Therefore, it is absolute nonsense to say that we have not been addressing modernisation, or that we are not willing to continue to do so.
  Our principal argument is that it is investment that is needed, and that lack of capacity is the biggest single problem. As money goes into dealing with that, it is only right and proper to pay attention to modernisation.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree with his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who said in a debate in Westminster Hall two or three weeks ago that the national health service needs more money than the Liberal Democrats have ever proposed?
  Mr. Harvey: The Liberal Democrats put forward a manifesto at the election with some commitments to moneys that we wanted to go into the health service, which we stipulated were over and above inflation. As the economic circumstances have improved three years into this Parliament, the state is clearly now able to afford a contribution that is greater than anyone would have thought possible at the time of that election. When we
  1086
  make a commitment at election time it is for the minimum that we think that we can do. It does not preclude our coming back later and identifying that, with rosier economic circumstances, more money can be put in.
  The long and short of it is that, as we publish our alternative Budget each year and publish our costed manifesto, we will commit Liberal Democrats to putting extra funds into the health service and we will say how much and from where it will come. Like the Conservatives, we will no doubt be poring over the comprehensive spending review when it comes out shortly and taking stock of what we think that the nation can afford in the light of that.
  Increasing capacity has to be the first priority. We also think that there are problems with accountability and transparency within the NHS and that those should also be part of the reform process. Patients ought to be able to expect a high quality of care on which they are well informed, and to have access to their medical notes and to the decisions made about them. Patients also have the right to expect prompt and safe treatment.
  The complaints procedures need a considerable overhaul. Yesterday, in my speech to the conference of the NHS Confederation, I talked about the need for a review of the compensation procedures used in the NHS. At the moment, about 70 per cent. of the money that has to be spent on compensation is swallowed up in legal costs. Reforms there could also help.
  Prevention and diagnosis are also worthy of attention. A huge technological advance is taking place in diagnostic equipment and early treatment procedures. In many cases, British science is at the forefront. We need as a matter of urgency to consider how the NHS can take advantage of that. We have been rather too slow and too luddite about adopting new technologies and have sometimes insisted on trialling things that have already been comprehensively trialled in other industrialised and developed countries. We ought to be more willing to move faster to put some of those procedures in place.
  A modernising NHS faces many challenges that it has not had to meet before. A growing population with an increasing number of elderly patients presents new problems and opportunities for existing and prospective NHS facilities. It is crucial that many of the old challenges are met more effectively. Clearly, heart disease and cancer treatments and the provision of mental health services need to be radically modernised. It is right that the Government have identified those as priorities.
  The development of primary-led care, joint budgets, cross-disciplinary initiatives and a focus on alternatives to hospitalisation are necessary features of a modernised and capable health service. Some are also aspects where private sector provision might reasonably play a part.
  At this exciting and challenging time, it is disappointing and regrettable that there are those who wish to destroy the fabric of the NHS by encroachment and neglect. As the debate has progressed, it has become increasingly clear that the official Opposition no longer believe in the NHS as it has existed until now. It is all too obvious that the familiar reassurances belie a party that underfunded

  1087
  the NHS for 18 years and now wishes it to be sidelined—a last resort NHS for the uninsurable, the elderly, the chronically sick and the marginalised.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Harvey: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, that policy would be a betrayal of the NHS, and the British people do not want it. Liberal Democrats will continue to expose those plans for what they are.
  Conservative spokesmen have talked several times in recent months of the increasing role for private insurance and the fact that they want to divert funds into it. This very afternoon, the Conservative spokesman drew a distinction at the Dispatch Box between the services that one and the same patient might expect to get in the NHS and those that he or she might look to private insurance to provide.
  I am sorry that the Conservatives do not see that policy for what it is. The debate underlines the principles of the NHS as they have always existed. We will continue to take on the Conservatives on that issue in the next few months and into the election. Those are the facts of the matter. The Conservatives may not like it, but that is the meaning of their policies and we will continue to explain that to the British people.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Harvey: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already made his point at the Dispatch Box and we have heard enough of that.
  Liberal Democrats remain committed to the NHS. Clearly, if sustainable reconstruction can improve the quality of health care, the funds ought to be made available to the NHS to do so. Our party remains committed to reform and modernisation, welcomes much of the general direction of what the Government are doing with the help of doctors, nurses, the professions allied to medicine, managers, patient groups and others. There are signs of the beginnings of an emerging consensus on the matter. The Liberal Democrats welcome that consensus of all the stakeholders in the NHS about its future and what it might achieve. Only by going forward on the basis of consensus can we deliver what the majority of the people want and all the people need.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches and that that will apply from now on.
  2.58 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): I will try to be brief. There was little substance in the Opposition's attack today and more than a whiff of hypocrisy. The reality is that the Tories left us with a two-tier system—fundholding and non-fundholding—and now I am not sure whether they
  1088
  want a two or a three-tier system, with the private sector and, perhaps, a return to fundholding and non-fundholding too. They do not want a unified system; that is obvious.
  We all know about the effects of the internal market. We all knew that it was unfair. I presume that all hon. Members have advice surgeries. In those, we learned of the problems that that market was creating. We also know that it was one reason why the Conservatives lost the election. We did not have enough staff in the health service, the buildings were poor and it lacked capital expenditure. I think that 50 per cent. of NHS buildings were built before the war, which is 50-odd years ago. Also, the number of doctors and nurses in training was at a record low.
  The Tories believe that all that is forgotten. They believe that people have short memories, but that is not true. We had all those problems in my constituency. On top of that, we had been waiting for a brand new hospital for over 20 years. We were promised one in the late 1970s. We needed it for two reasons: first, our old one was in part of an old Victorian workhouse and was built at the beginning of the last century. It is now a listed building and will provide a very good campus for our new teacher training college, but it was inadequate as a hospital. Secondly and more seriously, the maternity unit was three miles away from the paediatricians and anaesthetists.
  The Tory Government received a report saying that young babies in my constituency were dying because of the split site, but nothing was done. The right hon. Member for South"West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) is in her place. Perhaps she can explain why on one occasion when she was Secretary of State, her Government withdrew the contract for building Carlisle hospital a week before it was due to go out to tender. That is what my people remember about the Conservative Government's record.
  Let us contrast that with what has happened under the Labour Government. They were elected on 1 May 1997. I went to see the Secretary of State in June and put the case for Carlisle being a priority. In July he agreed with me and announced the intention to build a new hospital. In September the contract was let. In November, on one of the happiest days of my life, I cut the sod to mark the start of the building of our new hospital.
  It may take three years to train a nurse and five years to train a doctor, but it took fewer than three years to complete our brand new district hospital. It was delivered in April, on budget. One of the problems that we had with its funding was that it was delivered before time. There was not a precedent for that—nobody could remember a hospital being delivered before time. A fortnight ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to my constituency and opened the hospital.
  The hospital was started under a Labour Government and completed under a Labour Government, and it is only the first of many. We are talking not just about a new building but about new operating theatres, new equipment, everything being brought on to the site, a new hydrotherapy pool and more intensive care beds—an extra £500,000 was invested in them. A new nurse consultant was announced during the Prime Minister's visit. That shows the contrast between what the Conservatives did not do and what a Labour Government have done in my constituency.

  1089
  I know hon. Members on both sides of the House are looking forward to the happy day when their new local hospitals are built.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): We have been waiting since 1962.
  Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, has been waiting since 1962, and I am sure that his constituents believe that a Labour Government will deliver where the Conservatives never did in 18 years.
  Everything appears to be improving. The Labour Government have delivered on more than a district general hospital: they have built a new psychiatric unit and closed the old Victorian asylum. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) complained that NHS Direct had not been tested. We cannot win, can we? If we wait and double or treble check to see if everything works, we are accused of not delivering; when we go ahead with a good scheme, we are accused of being hasty. However, that is what we expect of the Liberal party.
  We are looking forward to NHS Direct operating from my constituency from October. It will employ 30 nurses and provide a valuable 24-hour service to Cumbria and north Lancashire.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman has such a splendid situation in his constituency, what advice could he give to a Member of Parliament who now has one in 10 constituents waiting more than a year for treatment, and where the number of one-year waiters has trebled since the general election?
  Mr. Martlew: Is the right hon. Lady saying that that is what is happening in her constituency? If so, she should take some of the responsibility, as she was Secretary of State for many years.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Go private.
  Mr. Martlew: As my hon. Friend says, the Conservatives' option is: go private.
  There is still more. On Saturday the News and Star ran the headline:
  £345,000 to pay for GPs' late surgeries
  and wrote about a Government boost for Cumbria health teams. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's visit, although the local paper did him proud; it shows what the Labour Government are delivering. People will see developments. Perhaps my constituency is ahead, but the Government will deliver. Developments will take time to come through the system, but it is working. The difference is that in 18 years the Tory Government never delivered. They had the opportunity; the economy was right; they could have spent the money—but they refused, basically because they did not believe in the NHS.
  Everything is improving, but not everything is right. Hon Members would not expect me to speak without reminding them of what needs to be done. I represent a constituency in a rural county and we have been pressing the Home Secretary to give us extra money for sparsity.
  1090
  It appears that we will get that extra money for police funding. If the case has been made for the police, it must be made for the health service, too.
  We have two district general hospitals, although in terms of numbers we probably justify only one. However, they are 40 miles apart: one is in Whitehaven in the Copeland constituency and the other is in Carlisle. That difficulty needs to be addressed if we are to attract top-flight consultants and maintain a first-class service. I am sure that Ministers are looking at that.
  I want next to raise my concern about reorganisation. In the late 1970s I was chairman of the health authority. Since then there have been about six or seven reorganisations. The present one is reconfiguration. I have reservations about it for our acute trusts. That is not the real issue, however—it is the primary care trusts that concern me. Although we have a relatively small population, it appears that a decision is being taken to go for three of these trusts. There is no justification for it. We will end up with duplication of management: we will have three sets of management where one or possibly two would be right. That will take money away from patient care and create all sorts of confusions for community services. I will write to my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that he has noted my concern.
  The choice is clear: it is between a privatised NHS where—let us accept what the Tories say; we do not want to scare people—people who need life-saving operations will receive them, but people who need cataract operations or hip replacements will have to go on an extended waiting list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?] I thought that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) had made his speech. People will go on an extended waiting list—that is what the Tories said—unless they have private insurance. The Tories will give away taxpayers' money, probably £1 billion, to subsidise private insurance for those who are employed or can afford it. Poor people who cannot afford it will have to go on an extended waiting list. There is no argument about that. Of course, the vast majority of people who use the NHS are of retirement age—they are over 65. What is the Tory message to pensioners? It is to go on an extended list because, as we all know, they cannot afford private insurance.
  We have the option of a privatised service—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—or, under the Labour Government, our offer, in my constituency and throughout the country, of a modernised, well funded health service that will serve the old, the sick, the poor and everyone else.
  3.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on calling the debate—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who opened it by forcing the Government on to the defensive on health. The reason that he provoked such a weak, defensive and slightly irritable response from the Secretary of State was that my hon. Friend focused on positive proposals to improve the NHS, on which the vast majority of our constituents depend. He emphasised the importance of choice for patients in the NHS—a word not even mentioned by the Secretary of State in his contribution.
  My hon. Friend brings to the debate the fact that he dedicated his professional life to working as a doctor in the NHS, treating patients. That gives us credibility as

  1091
  members of a party which cares for and wants to improve the NHS. We field real doctors; the Government field spin doctors on their Front Bench.
  Over the years, it is strange that our debates on the NHS have tended to revolve exclusively around how much money is put into the service rather than how much health care comes out. That process was carried to its ultimate absurdity by the Chancellor in his Budget, when he set the target of matching the amount spent by our European partners. It would make sense to set as a target matching and surpassing the health standards achieved in other European countries, but it is bizarre to use their spending as a target, when there is little correlation between the amount a country spends and its performance in improving the health of its people.
  Despite the Government's wish to focus on inputs, the debate increasingly turns—as it should—on the quality of care delivered by the NHS.
  Dr. Stoate: Does the right hon. Gentleman belong to that section of the Tory party that believes that we are reckless to put extra money into the NHS, or does he believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right to allocate those extra billions of pounds? That money is undoubtedly improving patient outcomes throughout the country.
  Mr. Lilley: The important thing is to target improvements in standards. That may well require extra money, but that is what the target should be—not spending money as an end in itself. Surely no one would want to spend money if it did not produce a good result. If we can improve quality without necessarily spending money, then surely we would all want that. That is certainly what our voters and constituents want; their concern about quality is growing.
  Last year, there was a record number of complaints in the NHS. Patients have an increasingly consumerist attitude to health care—although that is good in the long run. There is a focus on the specific shortcomings of a minority of clinicians—sadly, misused and abused by the Government, who try to put on the medical profession blame that should rightly fall on the Government.
  Our focus should be on improving quality. There are two broad approaches to that end. The first is that adopted by the Government: to focus exclusively on the command and control approach to managing the NHS. It is to focus on centralising the service; on sending out detailed circulars, like a shower of confetti; on micro-managing from Whitehall; on aiming for uniformity; on turning doctors into functionaries rather than professionals; and on treating patients as pawns rather than as people with a say in where and how they are treated.
  The second approach is to try to modulate by more decentralisation those aspects of the NHS that must inevitably be centralised to some degree; to delegate responsibility to local hospitals and trusts; to encourage a greater diversity of provision within the service; and, above all, to harness the desire of patients and doctors to obtain the best treatment from the NHS. I want to focus on that aspect.
  In every other service with which we deal—including those that are most important to us—when users have choice, it drives up quality of service. When users have
  1092
  choice, service providers know that, if they do not match the quality of the best provider, they will lose users and resources. As a result, they will not be able to expand or to provide more of the service to which they are dedicated—whether for charitable or commercial reasons.
  Where choice exists, comparatively marginal movements of users between suppliers produce major improvements in quality, as providers respond.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am interested in the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about choice. I am concerned that when choice is afforded to certain people, it is denied to others. It is something of a myth to suggest that we all have free choice in health care. One person's choice to queue-jump to see a consultant denies someone else access to that consultant. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that point?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I want to extend choice to everyone. I hope he believes that is right; it formed part of the original conception of the NHS.
  Unfortunately, patient choice has progressively been largely eliminated in the NHS. I acknowledge that there were some restrictions as the unintended consequences of the otherwise desirable reforms that we introduced. However, at least we allowed choice through extra-contractual referrals in exceptional cases. Since April last year, the Government have, in effect, abolished the last vestiges of patient choice in the NHS.
  A patient cannot, with a GP referral, choose to go to a hospital with a shorter waiting list than the hospital selected by the local health care bureaucracy—the primary care group. A patient cannot choose to be treated at a hospital with a better record of success, at a cleaner hospital, or at one with fewer avoidable referrals—information about which is available.
  The Prime Minister has quite an instinct for what people want—I acknowledge that. No doubt many people heard and applauded his speech to the party conference. He said:
  I want to go to the hospital of my choice, on the day I want, at the time I want. And I want it on the NHS.
  That is what he said and he was right to offer it as a promise. The Conservatives should try to deliver that promise.
  However—as is characteristic of the Prime Minister—he says one thing and does another, because his Government have abolished choice. It is not only I who realise that. The director of the College of Health said that, under the arrangements introduced last April:
  There is now less choice than ever in the history of the NHS.
  We should be moving in the opposite direction, for which there are three requirements. First, we must give patients and their GPs the right of referral to any hospital in the United Kingdom—in practice, not merely in theory. Secondly, we should publish information—on waiting times, success rates, specialisation and the availability of single-sex wards—in GP's surgeries and on the internet, so that patients can make informed choices.
  Thirdly, we should ensure that money follows patient choice. That may seem the most remote requirement, but it is the most important. If money follows patient choice

  1093
  speedily and clearly, hospitals will be able to treat patients properly and we shall not simply lengthen waiting lists at the more popular hospitals.
  Of course, that means that money will not go to the less popular hospitals. That will not tip them into a spiral of decline as some people imagine, but it will cause them to respond and ask why fewer patients want to go to them.
  4 If that is because they have a poor track record for a particular treatment, they will undoubtedly take action to change personnel. Hospitals will reassign doctors to operations that they are good at and not to those that they are less good at, or they will replace them so that the hospitals regain the confidence of the people living in the area.
  If we do that, it will have three beneficial effects. First, it will drive up quality throughout the NHS. In my pamphlet "Patient Power", published by the Prime Minister's favourite think-tank, Demos, I quote details of a study undertaken in New York state which analysed the performance of every surgeon carrying out heart bypass surgery, and assessed their success rates. Under the American Freedom of Information Act, the study was forced to publish detailed information and the consequence was a dramatic improvement in performance. People had the knowledge and could choose which hospital to go to. As hospitals responded to that knowledge and choice, a dramatic improvement in the success rate of surgeons took place. In particular, that happened in the hospitals that previously had the worse success rates.
  That example demonstrates that when one has choice, information and a variety of suppliers of health care, one obtains an improvement in quality. I want such an improvement for the people who depend on the NHS.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets completely carried away with the argument about the American model and freedom of information, will he address the fact that in the United States, which has a largely private health service, many people are denied access to any health care whatever for the type of surgery that he has highlighted? Does that study refer to the problem of social exclusion that is caused by the type of private health services that he appears to favour?
  Mr. Lilley: I am not advocating those aspects of the American system. I simply propose that, within the NHS, patients should have choice. The hon. Gentleman may care to tell his constituents that he does not believe that they should have choice. He can try to argue that if he wishes, but it has nothing to do with whether there is a large private sector.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Not now, because I wish to make progress.
  If we move in the direction that I have described, it will have three beneficial effects. First, it will drive up quality. Secondly, it will facilitate the optimal degree of specialisation within the health service. The abolition of extra-contractual referrals last April is causing a crisis in specialist care in the NHS. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, 24 surgeons issued a press release
  1094
  to coincide with the publication of my pamphlet last week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I had nothing to do with it; I did not know that they were going to issue it. However, I am flattered that drafts of my pamphlet have circulated so far round the medical profession that they chose to do so. They point out that
  since the abolition of extra-contractual referrals no mechanism exists to transfer funds to follow the patients that urgently need our help. Consequently, our waiting lists continue to grow and we are unable to treat these patients with the procedures they need.
  In the New Statesman, which may be read by Labour Members, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons criticised the consequences for the quality of care that resulted from the abolition of choice by this Government under their recent reforms.
  The third beneficial effect of encouraging more choice and more information in the NHS is an improvement in its ethos. At present, the NHS is monolithic, centralised, secretive and producer-oriented. If there is more choice and information, the NHS will become more focused on satisfying patient needs and on providing the maximum quality of care. That must be in the interests of all of us who care for the NHS and the quality of service that it provides for our constituents.
  Some people argue that we cannot have choice in the public sector, and they make the same argument about education. When money following pupil choice was introduced in the education system, that produced changes in schools, as I saw in my constituency. If we restore choice in the NHS and make money follow choice, not only will we bring about the degree of specialisation that people want and need, but we will see improvements develop in the future that have not occurred in the past.
  We have had little specialisation in common treatments, such as for hernias and hip replacements. Specialisation has been limited to the most complex and difficult operations. If people had choice, some specialist centres would develop alongside general hospitals. People would have the option to go to those specialist centres or to go the general hospital.
  A few days before my pamphlet was published, there was a leak that suggested that the Government were thinking of creating such centres—they wanted to get in first. However, what do they propose for the specialist centres? Will the Minister confirm that the leaks are authentic and that they are thinking of setting up such centres? If they do, who will decide which patients go to the specialist centre and which go to a local general hospital? Will it be the NHS bureaucracy? That would be wrong and improper. People should be given choice, and the proposal will work only if they are given choice. That will ensure that the specialist units stand and thrive alongside thriving general hospitals.
  Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman has confined his remarks today and in the pamphlet that he published to the point that improvements to the NHS will improve the health care of the people of this country. Does he believe, as those on the Opposition Front Bench believe, that the expansion of the private health care sector has any place whatever in improving health care in this country?
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, it has. However, my primary concern—like that of probably everyone in the House—is to improve the NHS. I do not suggest that choice within

  1095
  the NHS is the only solution, but if we introduce such choice it will reinforce all the other changes that Conservative Members have suggested and some of the changes that the Government have introduced.
  People want choice; people have a right to choice; the NHS will benefit from choice, but only the Conservative party will give them more choice.
  3.27 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. In every debate on this subject since the election, I have been on the record praising much of what the Government have achieved in a short period to restore a collectivised state national health service. I am proud of what we have been able to deliver so far.
  Bearing in mind that this is probably the last debate on the issue before we have the announcement on the national plan, I want to concentrate on the key matters that the plan should examine and those that need to be resolved and addressed before the next election and during the term of the next Labour Government. The relationship between the NHS and the private sector is at the core of the debate. It is crucial. Most colleagues are aware of my strongly held views. I am a believer in the NHS, and I am a member of the Labour party because I believe in the NHS. The NHS is only safe in the hands of a Labour Government.
  I am aware of the comments made by the Conservative party yesterday and its commitment to "dramatically extending" the private health sector. I am interested in the comments made by the Government in recent weeks about making use of what they term as under-used capacity in the private sector. I may refer to that shortly.
  The relationship between the NHS and the private sector is one of the great unresolved issues of the NHS. It has not been sorted out in the 52 years for which we have had a state health care system. The fact that the issue has not been resolved is at the heart of the failure to achieve the principle of equity that was one of the central principles that the nation aimed to achieve when the NHS was set up in 1948. I was interested by the fact that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) used the term "equity" in his arguments for the Conservative party's new proposals. I would like to hear—I have not heard it yet—how his suggestion for extending the use of the private sector squares with the principle of equity. I do not see how the two match.
  I wish to take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on the issue of choice. I intervened on him to make a point about choice on health. We all know that it is common practice for some people who are waiting to see an NHS consultant who also has a private practice to pay to see that consultant privately and queue-jump. They are exercising their right to free choice but, by doing so, they deny access to an NHS patient on that same waiting list. The concept of choice therefore needs to be considered in far more detail than was done in the right hon. Gentleman's superficial examination.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with education and said that we all have a free choice of schools. Of course some people have a choice, but to get
  1096
  access to schools that are not immediately on their doorstep, people need a car or access to public transport, and perhaps assistance with picking up their children. It is not quite as simple as saying that free choice means that someone can go from one end of the country to the other. By suggesting that that is free choice, we are automatically denying opportunity to vast numbers of people who cannot have choice in the way the right hon. Gentleman envisages.
  The principle of allowing queue jumping is fundamentally wrong and undermines the equity principle. I hope that the Government will look at that in the national plan. Access to treatment should be on the basis of need: that is an ethical and moral issue. I recall taking part in a radio debate chaired by Boris Johnson with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who was previously on Conservative Front Bench. Mr. Johnson and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton did not understand why I thought that access to treatment was an ethical and moral issue. A situation in which some people in need are denied access to treatment on the basis that they are unable to pay for it is fundamentally wrong in principle. I cannot understand how anyone can defend that kind of injustice.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) spoke about opting out of the NHS. The idea that people who opt out of the NHS somehow help others is utter nonsense, as they are all seeing the same doctors. Those doctors should be working in the NHS and dealing with waiting lists, which should be organised on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, right now, under this Government, West Surrey health authority is circulating a consultation document which states:
  Everyone who has access to other forms of healthcare should be encouraged to use them.
  The authority, which faces an £18 million deficit, obviously believes that that will leave more resources available to deal with other patients.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am sure that Wakefield health authority is not saying that. If it did, I would want to know. As the hon. Gentleman obviously understands, the thing does not add up, as the same people are involved. I hope that the Government will address that.
  Another private sector issue that I have picked up time and time again is a grievance that I hear, especially from elderly people who come to me as their local Member of Parliament. They are on a waiting list, usually for a hip replacement or an orthopaedic problem, and have to wait a certain length of time. They are told that, if they pay a certain sum, they can be in that much sooner. A couple of years ago, a gentleman came to see me about his elderly wife, who could not walk and needed a hip replacement. He faced the choice of her suffering with the problem for about a year or paying the consultant money. He was selling his car to pay to get his 81-year-old wife in. At that time of life, people do not have a lot of time left. That is a disgraceful situation, and it is about time that we addressed it.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I am sorry, I must carry on.

  1097
  The only way of addressing the problem is to believe in equity on principle. We talk blandly about that belief, but do not address it practically or deal with providing people with access to care in a fair, reasonable and decent way.
  I am conscious that the Select Committee on Health is bringing out a report next week, and I do not want to stray into that. However, we in the Committee heard evidence that raised strong questions about whether it is appropriate for consultants with private practices to manage their own waiting lists. The evidence was along the lines that there are perverse incentives, as the Secretary of State said. One witness said that the arrangement was an "invitation to mischief." We should look at those areas.
  Mr. Burns: I do not want to break the thread of the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, is it right for him to be telling the House about some of the evidence that we in the Health Committee received before the publication of the report next week?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The evidence is on the record. Written evidence was available when the Health Committee took evidence. Everyone has seen it, and it has been in the press and on television. I have not referred to anything in the Health Committee's conclusions. The hon. Gentleman knows what those conclusions are, and we can have a debate next week.
  Our debate is about NHS priorities. Some weeks ago, when we last debated the NHS, I said that the biggest distortion of priorities in the NHS arose from private medicine. I stick by that and I strongly believe it. People may try to contradict me, but I believe that that is true and that, 50 years on, we should do something about it.
  I have practical concerns about the relationship between the state and private sector which relate not only to what the Opposition have said today but to what the Government have said in recent weeks. The Opposition fail to understand the way in which the private sector recruits its staff entirely from the NHS. As we have said time and time again, expanding the private sector means that there is a contraction of NHS staff numbers, reducing the ability of the NHS to cope with the need that they are attempting to address.
  The Government have talked about the possibility of entire NHS staff teams moving to use capacity in private hospitals. I appreciate that distinction, and my only problem with the suggestion is that the track record on the short-term use of the private sector is that short-term fixes lead to a long-term arrangement. We need only look at the pattern of mental health provision in different parts of the country to see that, where the private sector has been used as a temporary fix, the arrangements have stayed in place for many years. We must look at that area very carefully.
  I am not giving away any secrets from the Health Committee's recent inquiry by saying that we received evidence of under-used capacity in the NHS. Witnesses told the Health Committee that there are empty operating theatres in the NHS, so I hope that, before we start going into the private sector, we will make appropriate use of that capacity.
  In the time I have left, I want to touch briefly on other key areas with which I hope the national plan will deal. I have argued for many years that the fundamental
  1098
  problem in the NHS is the lack of a proper relationship between it and local government, especially local authority social services. I was around before 1974, when there were local government health departments, and I believe that that system worked much better than the system that succeeded it. The health and social care divide can be addressed by looking at organisational issues, as well as some of the issues that the royal commission has discussed.
  Commendably, the Government have introduced the potential for common budgets under the Health Act 1999, and I welcome that. I honestly believe, though, that we must examine organisational integration in a way that the Government have not done so far. I hear whispers, and there is speculation in the press that there is a move to put local authority social services in the health service. That would not be going in the right direction, as public health is the other area that suffers from the lack of a connection.
  I worked in local government as a young councillor at the time when public health was a local government responsibility. It makes much more sense to have public health in a local authority setting than to have it separated, as it currently is, in a health setting, remote from such policy drivers as health, environmental health and a range of other local government functions. I hope that the Government will examine that area carefully. The position of public health needs to be addressed alongside its relationship with social services.
  I welcome the Government's emphasis on primary care. I certainly urge a much closer relationship to enhance the public health role within a primary care setting. At the moment, there is a distance between primary care and public health, which we must examine.
  I shall conclude with a point made, I believe by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We need to make the system of NHS governance far more open. We have never had a democratic national health service. I am happy to argue that micro-management should take place on a local level, but it should be democratic. In areas such as mine, it would be possible to develop regional government by combining health and local government functions in a way that we have not yet properly thought through.
  I hope that the Minister has listened carefully, and I wish him well in his work on the national plan. I am sure that it will be an exciting development, and I hope that some of my points will be taken on board.
  3.40 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: The most important priorities in the national health service are not those of the Government, health service managers or doctors and staff, but those of the patients themselves. The Government gained power at the last general election on the crest of many promises, one of which was to restore the confidence that they said had been lost in the NHS. Yet we cannot open a newspaper or hear a news broadcast without learning, almost every day, of the latest NHS catastrophe. All areas of the NHS seem to be affected: general practice, paediatrics, obstetrics and pathology, to name just a few of the specialties involved in recent high-profile cases.
  We have to ask ourselves why. I believe that it is because the Government have set the wrong priorities. They have, for example, produced meaningless waiting

  1099
  list targets to tackle the wrong problems. As a result of inappropriate targets, priorities have been distorted. Hospital and primary care clinicians and managers have been told to focus on valueless directives and, as a result, they are failing to improve the services and care that really matter to NHS patients. The Government now stand indicted as the Government who destroyed NHS morale and snatched from patients the confidence that is so necessary to ensure that the patient-doctor relationship is effective and successful.
  Primary care groups in general practice have disrupted the delivery of medical services to patients. Over a year ago, I warned the Government that the requirement that doctors should be involved in the management of primary care groups would have a devastating effect on patients' access to their own practitioner. There are estimates that 500,000 consultations by patients' own doctors are being lost every year, so the number of patients affected is equal to a population the size of Sheffield. That is a crucial reduction in the quality and availability of the service that patients demand and expect, and from which they benefit.
  There are now greater administrative demands, with the Government focusing priorities on calling GPs away to lead ever more non-clinical activities. There are clinical governance leads, risk management leads, training leads, education leads, audit leads and more. It was reported recently that in one large general practice, the doctors have suggested that there should be a lead partner with the responsibility to see patients.
  There are increasing examples of how the Government are full of hot air and waffle. The House should consider the report of the chief medical officer for England and Wales, Professor Liam Donaldson, which reveals spectacular failures in the NHS. It reports the deaths of 400 patients a year as a result of errors and failures in the health service. What uproar would there be if a jumbo jet crashed in the United Kingdom every year killing all the passengers and crew? The report goes on to say that there are 10,000 serious incidents in the health service every year. Can hon. Members imagine the Secretary of State or the Minister pontificating on all the actions that would have to be taken if, every year, every single passenger on a dozen rush-hour trains fell ill with a serious disease through no fault of their own?
  Yet what has Professor Donaldson done? He has produced a complacent report that fails to set the necessary priorities. That goes hand in hand with a posturing Government who seek only froth without substance and who fail to solve, with encouragement and resources, the real problems that beset the NHS.
  Dr. Stoate: I share the hon. Lady's concerns that there are far too many adverse and critical incidents in the NHS, many of which are due to poor training and to doctors failing to keep up to date. That is precisely why it is so important that GPs and hospital doctors take part in audit, training and continuous professional development. They must also take part in revalidation to ensure that the clinical skills that they learned when they were at medical school are maintained throughout their lives. Surely the hon. Lady is not arguing that GPs and others should spend less time in education, training and audit.
  Mrs. Roe: The patients should also be considered in these matters, and their priorities must come first. I must
  1100
  tell the hon. Gentleman that my constituents are becoming a little sceptical about the word "modernisation", which the Government seem to use about every policy initiative. From my experience of the past three years, I believe that "modernisation" is being used instead of "destruction", and there is a destructive element to many policies that are being introduced without any new system to replace the old and to improve the service. Modernisation must equal making it better, and not destroying a system just for the sake of gimmick and political correctness.
  Let us consider two Government targets; one is in community health and the other is in acute services. Unfortunately, mental health has always been a true Cinderella service, long starved of adequate funding. The Government propose the elimination of suicide by patients who have recently been within the mental health system by 2005. That tragic loss of life is entirely unnecessary now. Surely the Government can imagine the loneliness and despair of those who ultimately take their own lives. They can imagine the emptiness felt by those left behind, and the guilt and failure felt by the clinical staff who failed to provide patients with the support that they needed when they were desperate.
  More than 3,500 people commit suicide every year, and a third have had recent contact with NHS mental health services. Little more than a fifth are women. Over the last 20 years, male suicides have risen by nearly 15 per cent. The average age of the victim has fallen. More men are killing themselves and more of those are young. The most common ages for suicide are adolescence and old age—the times when problems of loneliness, financial pressures, break-up of a relationship or loss of a partner, bullying and abuse of alcohol are rife. Mental illness is of high incidence and it is a key risk. A patient suffering from severe depression probably has a one in seven lifetime risk of killing him or herself.
  This tragedy is not a problem for next month or next year; it is a huge priority now. Although I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has decided to do something about the problem, I do not think that the Government can luxuriate in the provision of five years to grasp the tragic problem that affects those who were recently mental health patients. It needs to be sorted out now, and those people at risk of suicide and not identified by the health system need to be recognised and incorporated in it now.
  Let us consider the Government's position on obstetric complications. Again, they have awarded themselves five years to reduce the incidence of complications in the specialty by 25 per cent. That seems unbelievably casual, particularly given the two high-profile cases concerning senior obstetricians in the last few weeks. There are more than 700,000 live births in the United Kingdom every year—700,000 opportunities for disaster or mismanagement. Yet what is the Government's approach? They have given themselves five years to make a modest reduction in the problem.
  There will be more than 50 million obstetric consultations in hospital, surgery and clinic during the next five years in primary and secondary care. Such a relaxed and casual attitude is unacceptable. How many babies will have to die or be damaged before the Government realise the true urgency of the problem? To be pouring money into a health system with the objective of producing a headline about taking a few people off the waiting lists when there is real work to be done urgently

  1101
  to save life and reduce morbidity is, frankly, immoral. In any case, the Government priority of cutting waiting lists is a sham, and everyone knows it. They have simply rearranged the distribution of the patients waiting in that queue.
  The number of patients at the front of the queue for their operation has declined a bit, but at the other end of the queue, patients in pain and discomfort with, for example, back, shoulder and hip problems are waiting longer and longer for their first visit to the specialist. In the past seven days, it has been reported that not only do those patients have to wait up to 18 months for surgery, but that they have to wait a year or more as well just to be seen by a consultant for the first time. That wait is nearly two years in Medway, well over a year at the Royal London, a year at the Royal Sussex and over six months at Guy's. Demand continues to rise and pressure in the system continues to increase.
  I do not have time today to speak about the shambles that the Government have the effrontery to call an IT strategy. We listened intently as the strategy was announced in 1998. There was to be much progress in electronic records, data transfer and communication. The Government were to commit £5 billion and the programme was to have a seven-year roll-out. Yet it is now becoming clear that the IT strategy has collapsed and the likelihood of exciting electronic developments is receding into the distant future. A key priority is in ruins, and I look forward to a ministerial statement on that as a matter of urgency.
  Those are the real priorities that the Secretary of State should address. He must not conceal unattractive features simply by applying more make-up. They must be addressed as the key priorities in the NHS. Sham must be replaced with substance so that the real losers in the NHS—the real sufferers from Labour's policies—have the opportunity to get the care that they need at the time that they need it.
  3.52 pm
  Ms Linda Perham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage in the debate. As some hon. Members know, my father suffered a heart attack late on Tuesday, and although he is making progress, I may be called away in the next few hours, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I am unable to stay until the end of the debate.
  I begin by paying tribute to all those dedicated people in the NHS who have been involved in my father's care in the past few days. His GP, the ambulance crew and nursing and medical staff at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup are a testament to the NHS working at its best to deliver for patients. Unlike Conservative Members, led by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I want to praise our NHS, not to run it down.
  Today is my birthday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Happy birthday."] I am 53—almost exactly a year older than the NHS, so I have grown up and grown older shielded and supported by the availability of and access to public health care. I am proud and fortunate to have been born under the pioneering post-war Labour Government, whose greatest achievement was to realise the dream of so many British people who were denied health provision because they could not afford it. This Labour Government are passionately committed to retaining and supporting the
  1102
  NHS, which was set up in the teeth of Tory opposition. We are the party that the British people trust to preserve and improve the people's health service.
  Health is the big issue in my constituency. The neglect and divisiveness of the policies of previous Conservative Governments was a large factor in the decision of the electorate of Ilford, North to turn out the Tories three years ago. Labour's priority for the NHS in the past three years, and for the years ahead, is for a first-class, properly funded service. In March, the Budget gave the NHS its biggest ever cash boost. After the Budget, the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Ian Bogle, said:
  We see this as the first major step to putting the health service on a sound long-term funding basis.
  As a result of the funds made available in the Budget, my health authority, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, secured an extra £6 million. Although it is severely disadvantaged by the current funding formula for health authorities—a matter about which I and my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) continue to make representations to Ministers, as my hon. Friend the Minister well knows—the authority was pleased to receive that much needed extra cash to provide services for local people.
  My health authority has also gained in the past three years from £800,000 and £1.1 million allocated respectively to King George and Whipps Cross hospitals to modernise their accident and emergency departments as part of a £15 million investment in London. It scooped further funding from the successful single regeneration budget bid, called the "Health ladder to social inclusion", creating or safeguarding 115 jobs and getting 300 people training or qualifications, 10 new business start-ups, 60 voluntary or community groups supported and 300 capacity-building initiatives to be carried out.
  In addition, Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority has benefited from the Government commitment to prioritising cancer treatment as part of their war against the killer diseases. Last May, I was pleased to join Baroness Hayman, then a Health Minister, when she opened the new breast screening and ultrasound department at Whipps Cross hospital, which also won part of the £93 million new opportunities fund award in September 1999 for replacement X-ray equipment for breast screening. In January, my health authority shared £91,000 of a £1.5 million boost to London health authorities, which funded a cancer referral co-ordinator and administrative support and systems management.
  My own involvement in working for improvements in cancer treatment started with co-operation with Age Concern on age discrimination issues, pressing the Government to extend breast cancer screening to women over 65—the group most at risk. I am glad that, in March, the Government announced their commitment to extend that programme if the current pilot studies show that it would be beneficial. More recently, I have worked closely with the UK Breast Cancer Coalition, speaking at seminars and advising on its "advocacy in action" programme, in which volunteers from across the country share campaigning experiences and hear from experts.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for her involvement and work in the breast cancer campaigns, although I do not agree with anything that she said in her speech. I also pay tribute to several hon. Members who are active in those campaigns.

  1103
  actively support other cancer campaigns, including the work of the Orchid Cancer Appeal, set up by Colin Osborne—a survivor of testicular cancer who lives a few streets away from me in my constituency. I am a member of the all-party group on male cancers, which is ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths).
  Another local initiative is the HEAL cancer charity, which covers Hertfordshire, Essex and north and east London, including nine hospitals in the region. It was founded in 1993 by oncologist Dr. Neville Davidson, a Chigwell resident. HEAL is now focusing on raising funds for the Helen Rollason cancer care centre at the North Middlesex hospital. As some hon. Members will remember, Helen was the TV presenter and first woman to anchor "Grandstand", who tragically lost her fight against bowel cancer last August.
  Mrs. Laing: I add my support to HEAL and all the work of Neville Davidson and his team; they do a lot of good in my constituency, too.
  Ms Perham: I thank the hon. Lady for her support. Several hon. Members in our local area are involved with that charity; it has a particular resonance because of Helen's great fight against her disease, and I am pleased at the support it has gained locally.
  I have also been involved in campaigns to raise awareness of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer and have added a personal contribution to the fight against ovarian cancer, which kills 4,000 women a year, by participating in the ovarian cancer screening programme at Bart's hospital. Therefore, I welcome the answer that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), gave in February of this year showing that the Government spent £1 million in 1998–99 on directly commissioned research relating to ovarian cancer and another £1 million on supporting research councils and charities. She also promised the setting up of a major ovarian cancer screening study.
  I am pleased that, as part of their overall commitment to modernising—if I can use that word—the NHS, the Government are prioritising patient care to ensure fast and convenient access and increased patient empowerment, which will give patients a greater say in their treatment.
  I have been honoured, as a member of the all-party group on cancer, to be asked to chair one of the groups working on five pledges to develop a comprehensive cancer strategy. Those are to improve the prevention of cancer; to ensure equal access to higher standards of care; to provide patient-centred care through the NHS—the group with which I am involved is working on that—to increase Government spending on a national agenda for cancer research; and to develop better treatments and to implement them quickly. At a time when the world is coming to terms with the staggering potential of the human genome breakthrough, we cannot afford to wait for miracle cures while one in four people in the United Kingdom is dying of cancer now.
  I have focused on the treatment of cancer because of my attempts to press for improvements in the fight against that killer disease, but I am equally determined, as are the
  1104
  Labour Government, to confront the challenges of providing health care to all our people in the new century, and vigorously to oppose the Tory party's agenda of privatisation and selection for certain services by the ability to pay. I want to protect, to support and to expand our NHS. That is what the British people want and that is what we are delivering.
  4.1 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: First, may I say that I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) has shown a great deal of courage? That demonstrates not just her keen personal interest, but her wider political and social interest in health. I hope that all goes well with her family.
  There are one or two irritating factors in the debate. One is the view that the NHS was created by just one party. It was not. It came out of a coalition that was developed during the war and it was finally put into practice with the support of Governments of both parties—[Interruption.] I do not want to argue about that because it is a fact.
  Secondly, the question of expenditure is very important. When the NHS started, it had a budget of about £170 million. After two or three months, it increased to £250 million. Then it went to £374 million. The structure of everything being free at the point of demand was demolished when Mr. Bevan accepted—reluctantly—that there would have to be prescription charges. In 1951, he had to resign because he could not stomach the Government's view that there should be charges for spectacles and dentures.
  Many advances are being made in the medical profession and in modern technology. Some are life saving; others we could deal with ourselves. Of course, we could embrace every illness and ailment—any pill that we want we can have—but that is not the reality of modern medicine, or of the problems that Governments have to face.
  There may be occasions when a Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to the Dispatch Box and does not give the NHS the extra money that we all think it should have, because he thinks that there is a greater demand for housing, that there is some problem to do with defence, or that the economy is not quite as robust as it was the previous year and the forecast is not so good either. If we demand that the health service should always be financed to meet every demand, we refuse to face up to the reality of modern medicine, modern needs and social responsibility; we fail to recognise financial prudence.
  Those are points that I would have thought could unite the House. Having come into the House in 1959, I have sat through a great many debates. I am astonished that we go on year after year having the sort of fights that we have. It is not true to say that—
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Let me finish the sentence and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is not true to say that the Opposition want to rely on the private sector totally and to demolish the health service; that is such rubbish. After all, when we came into office the NHS had a budget of £9 billion. We ended up with a budget of just over £40 billion.

  1105
  Now we are told that there will be another increase of about £20 billion from the present Government. Why is it that we automatically assume that, having poured that money in, we will have solved the problem of increasing expenditure on health? Of course we will not. We all know that there are many reasons why the burdens on health—the demands that are put on us—are increasingly greater and cannot always be solved with taxation. Some people say that they should be, but as I have said, there will be other priorities; there always are.
  We can argue that the health budget is not always the one that will create a healthier society—I mean in a physical sense. Better education and looking after oneself can help, as can a better sense of individual responsibility. It is not always the doctor to whom one must go. We might consult our own consciences about whether we can provide for some of our own health needs. That is why the debate is at times disappointing.
  Has any other country followed us? Not one has done so. The socialist Governments of Europe studied our methods, but not one of them has copied us. I have heard no contradiction on that point from any Minister, either. I have been to see them; I have talked with them; I have seen them struggle with their problems. My heart bleeds for them at times, because there is a recognition that, somehow or other, we can meet those demands, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said. I have heard him say it before and do not doubt his sincerity. I ask him to get out of the mould of his experience and try to broaden it a bit.
  In 1959, I fully supported the health service. Members of my own family have been involved in it. I was the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, and I knew all that went on there. I have enormous respect for those in the health service; I know that many of them have to put up with tremendously long working hours—that is not something of which we should be proud—but they do so with enormous good will. Why, then, should I tolerate the existing situation, when Minister after Minister says, "Let us spend more."? Then there is always someone who says, "You should have spent more and you should have done it the year before."
  In Germany, the Netherlands and other countries—we have all the statistics—they have more doctors, more specialists, more nurses and far fewer waiting lists. I am treasurer of a NATO parliamentary assembly. I must ensure that the assembly pays sufficient money to help our employees to meet their bills because they have to pay so much to the Belgian Government. They can get many other things very cheaply and, as I say, they have a better service. Not one of those people, some of whom are British, goes across the sea and gets it all for free in Britain. They would not touch it. They know that they have a better deal. Why do not we accept that? We have a lot to be proud of, but we will not be proud of it if we always have a spat year in year out.
  I do not see any reason why we should resent the private sector having some part in the health service. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in The Times on 8 May 1996:
  Surely it is time to get away from the sterile battle lines of public and private and instead look to how the two can best work together in the interests of the citizen—and in the interests of all citizens, at that.
  There are others. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Mr. Roger Liddell claimed the same in their book "The Blair Revolution." I will not quote it, but
  1106
  anyone can see what it says. They also talked about the need for diversity and innovation in the provision of public services, so what are we arguing about today? Where is the consistency? Then there is that venerable figure Mr. Steven Pollard, former director of the Fabian Society, who in a document entitled "Towards a More Cooperative Society" said on the role of independent health care:
  There is a myth in the Labour movement that any form of health provision from outside the national health service is by definition tainted by with capitalism or private profit. There is more to it than that.
  He is right.
  That brings us to the formidable problems that we have to face: rising demand for primary and secondary care, the rising number of elderly people, advances in medicine—one could go on and on. Ministers know about the shortage of consultants, but also that some who have been trained cannot find posts. In addition, as the BMA points out, it will take years for doctors currently attending medical school to emerge into general practice or senior hospital positions. Announcements that another 1,000 people are to be trained fill people with hope, as though the doctors will be turned out the next day, like rookies entering the Army, but that is not how medical training works. That is why we get disillusioned with Ministers—we know darned well that they cannot deliver just like that, but they give the impression that they can.
  If we are to be true to ourselves, we have to recognise the facts, one of which is that private provision, in its place, has a role. It does not diminish the health service—after all, consultants and GPs work in both the NHS and the private sector. I know people who work under contract with the NHS and give of their time to the private sector, and why should they not? In my constituency, we have people who work in a charity-supported private hospital that takes NHS patients. Such skilled people are the strength of our health service. I see no reason why we should not examine the extent to which we can broaden that base, as those on the continent have done, with better results than we have achieved.
  I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who, in a recent edition of our favourite House Magazine, advocated two longer-term reforms that might help:
  The first is to settle how the NHS raises its funds. We live in an age when most voters are not keen to increase income tax. Practically all voters see national insurance contributions as an insurance payment and not a tax. The Government should commit itself to transferring tax-based NHS expenditure to a national insurance base.
  That would certainly give buoyancy to NHS revenue. People do not mind paying insurance and, as Lord Beveridge pointed out, if a service has been paid for in advance—that is one way of seeing insurance—people are more likely to respect that service. They are also more likely to take more personal responsibility. When I see the many people in this country who eat far too much, become bloated and suffer from a heart attack or some other condition while they are relatively young, I wonder to what extent the problem was the result of natural causes, or whether it was self-inflicted. We know that we are not a healthy nation and that we do not take sufficient personal responsibility for our health.
  I hope that the House will take note of the views that I have expressed, which are not mine alone. They are the views of those who are progressive—workers at all stages

  1107
  of the national health service who are dedicated to improving it. They recognise that team spirit in the NHS and the private sector, and among those with specialties and knowledge, is the answer. If we acknowledge that, we might have a better debate and, more important, we would, for the first time, be able to give the British people hope that they have a service that is manageable and meets their needs.
  4.13 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: When introducing the debate, the Tories drew a wholly inaccurate picture of the NHS—one that gave no credit to the hard-working staff of the NHS throughout this country. I mean all NHS staff, not only the doctors and nurses on whom we often focus, but the huge teams of people working together in the interests of patients. A more accurate picture is the one that I see in my constituency—a positive picture of people working together in the interests of the population. A new hospital is being built. Local dentists now accept NHS patients and thousands of people have been added to their lists; by contrast, when Labour was elected, not a single dentist in Swindon took adult NHS patients. That shows how far we have come in three years.
  I remember, very soon after Labour was elected—it was not because of any legislative change, but because of the way in which Ministers spoke and the direction in which we said we wanted the NHS to go—NHS staff came to me and said, "We are so thankful that we can now work together, the community trust with the acute trust, to sort out what we need to do in Swindon." Before that, a new hospital was being built but the trust managers at that hospital did not even speak to the community trust, even though they relied on the community trust to deliver some of the services that would be needed in future. The atmosphere of competition that had prevailed before did the patients and staff who wanted to work together no service.
  Significant additional resources are now coming into the health service in Swindon. Staff now tell me, "We've got the money now." In part because of the pressure resulting from years of cuts under the Conservatives, it took time for the new money to come through and have an effect. A bit of slack is needed before people feel that there is new money and that they can start to do the new things that they wanted to do for years. Managers now tell me, "You have given us the money. Now it is up to us to deliver for your constituents." That is welcome news after what we heard in the past. Doctors—GPs and consultants alike—have welcomed the Government's actions, saying, "At last, we are looking at the real problems." For instance, we are examining the wider problems of public health, such as cancer, and focusing on cancer services, which were previously ignored.
  In the motion, the Tories have, rightly, raised concerns about political pressure in the NHS. I share some of those concerns, but the pressures started under the Conservative Government. In that time, I worked in the NHS for 11 years. At meetings, I was told that specific political targets had to be delivered; when I looked purchasers in the eye and asked, "Even if it means that a patient will not get his operation soon enough and might suffer—for ever—because of that?", the reply was, "You have to deliver the outcome." That pressure must be removed.
  1108
  One measure that might have given rise to such problems is the abolition of regional health authorities and their replacement by civil servants. I worry that, sometimes, civil servants focus on a particular political objective and do not listen to the broad spectrum of Ministers' remarks. It is clear to me that Ministers always say that clinical priorities must take precedence—I hear that time and again—yet people working on the ground in the NHS say that, sometimes, it does not feel like that to them. To them, I have two things to say: first, listen to Ministers—the Secretary of State has said on several occasions that clinical priority is the important thing; and secondly, look at the things that Labour Members of Parliament are doing in this country. We visit our local hospitals and community units and talk to staff working there—[HON. MEMBERS: "So do we."] Good—I am glad to hear that.
  Mrs. Laing: We have families too.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady must keep calm.
  Ms Drown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those remarks enable me to tell Conservative Members that if, during those visits, staff raise the concerns that I describe, they should tell them to listen to Ministers, because Ministers always say that clinical priority is important. In that way, we can get rid of the worry felt in the middle of the chain of command. I would hope that everyone in the House agrees that clinical priority must take precedence. In addition, the Government have said that they will protect whistleblowers in the NHS and elsewhere. Staff should raise their genuine concerns so that they can be properly addressed.
  The Opposition have also criticised our national consultation exercise. I took the opportunity to meet people in my local hospital who were responding to that consultation. They welcomed the opportunity to say what they thought was important in the NHS. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) referred to the importance of patients' views. If their views are important, surely we should support a consultation exercise that gives them the opportunity to make their views heard. It would be wrong and arrogant to say that doctors, nurses and other NHS staff have all the answers. Patients' views are important too.
  Another accusation concerns the manipulation of appointment systems and of waiting lists. There was definitely pressure and manipulation of systems under the Conservatives. They have such a cheek to say that there were no out-patients waiting when they were in office.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Lady tell me whether I have this right? I thought that she was elected on a manifesto pledge to save the NHS within 24 hours. Is she now saying that if she can point to certain things having happened before 1997, it is all right?
  Ms Drown: No. I am saying that it shows a remarkable cheek for the Opposition to try to claim that no out-patients waited under the Conservative Government. It is clear that waiting lists grew under the Conservatives by hundreds of thousands.
  Mr. Burns: I shall be cheeky, in the hon. Lady's terms. Will she tell me and my constituents what she thinks of

  1109
  the situation in mid-Essex? On 1 March 1997, 104 people in the area were waiting 12 months or more for hospital treatment. Today, 986 people are waiting. To be fair, I shall take the out-patient list. There were 555 people waiting more than 13 weeks in March 1997. There are now 2,946.
  Ms Drown: I would say to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that they should be glad that they have a Labour Government who are committed to reducing in-patient waiting lists, which was a manifesto pledge. However, we wish to go beyond that and to address out-patient waiting times, too. We will do more than the Labour party manifesto outlined because we believe that the NHS is important and that it is about in-patient treatment as well as out-patient treatment.
  Nevertheless, it must be remembered that under the Conservative Government waiting lists grew by hundreds of thousands. That should not be forgotten.
  Mr. Burns: My constituents who are waiting on out-patient and in-patient lists will be amazed and staggered by that reply. I have a weekly column in my local newspaper, so next Friday I shall be able to print her words. Will she answer the letters that will come to me as a result of her comments about what my constituents should think of having to wait for hospital treatment?
  Ms Drown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the strict parliamentary convention that would limit me in replying to his constituents. However, I am happy to tell them that the Government are committed to having an NHS on which everyone can rely. The Conservative party wants to have an NHS to which people turn for urgent treatment. However, if the treatment is not urgent and if the individual can afford it, he or she will go to the private health sector. Many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not be able to afford that. They will thus be faced with a two-tier system, and they will be the sufferers.
  It was remarkable cheek on the part of the Opposition to raise postcode rationing in their motion. Undoubtedly such rationing came into being under the Conservative Government. There has been much support throughout the House for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to deal with this problem. The Conservatives have agreed that NICE should examine costs and clinical effectiveness. There is no doubt that that is needed.
  I have a couple of quotes from general practitioners who have said that far too much is done in the NHS by habit rather than design. The co-ordinator of primary care in London, Dr. David Colin-Thome, a practising GP, has said that too many treatments are initiated more by habit than design. He claims that only 15 per cent. of treatments have been tested in randomised control trials. Dr. Tudor Hart has said:
  We've tended to take a pride in how idiosyncratic we are. This is a very doctor-centred view of our function—it's as though we are entertaining ourselves rather than providing care.
  In so far as that happens throughout the NHS in different specialties from time to time, there is a need to establish a national framework for all conditions so that all patients know what care and treatment has been properly tested and is the best for them and their families. NICE has been designed to do just that.
  1110
  We have had the leak over beta interferon. Possibly, it will be the first negative decision to be made by NICE. It will be a test of how a mature democracy can deal with that. It will be easy for Opposition parties to say, "We agree with NICE and we agree with the general proposals. We agree when it comes out with favourable results, but when there is something negative we will jump up and down and say, 'Let's not go along with this."" That is worrying because it will raise many fears and will not produce the NHS that we need, which is one where all patients know that they are receiving the best care, and care that has been properly tested.
  We return to the idiosyncratic behaviour of some doctors. If patients have been told by their GP or another doctor that beta interferon, for example, might help them, or another drug or treatment might, they will want to go ahead with that treatment once they have been started on that path. That has led to expectations, and psychological effects can often have an impact on people's physical health. Against that background, it is important for the patient to start on his course of treatment and to ascertain whether it works for him as an individual.
  I hope that NICE will in future lay out proper clinical pathways. If these care pathways can be agreed for everybody across the NHS, everybody will have the confidence to say, "Yes, this drug is right for me and I will have it;" or, "This drug is not, and I will not be given it." It is important to get the outlines of NICE known across the health service so that patients do not think different things when they see different doctors. We must ensure that there is confidence in the NHS. If we are to have a mature debate about NICE and about priorities in the NHS, we should move more towards trying to establish all-party agreement on NICE being the right way forward, and on supporting its decisions.
  We must try to work as constructively as possible. Of course the Opposition will continue to try to make political points out of the health service. I regret that in so doing they often scare patients. We should take no lessons from the Opposition. When in government, they were destroying the NHS. There were 24 hours in which to save it simply because the Conservatives were doing nothing for it.
  The internal market did not work. I spoke to finance director after finance director. One after the other told me, "This is not working. The Conservatives' internal market does not work. It does not help patients and it does not help staff." Labour is rebuilding the NHS with staff and with patients. I commend the Government on their work.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I hope that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) will forgive me if I do not take up her remarks, except to say that having heard them I now fully understand the meaning of the expression "Blair's babe".
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on raising this important issue for debate. First, I shall take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) about the allegations that have been made throughout the debate and at other times that the Opposition, when in government, would want to privatise the national health service. That is not true and is deeply offensive to all of us who believe passionately in the

  1111
  NHS. We have been in government for more than 50 per cent. of the lifetime of the health service. I am fair-minded enough to pay full credit to the Labour party for the establishment of the NHS in 1948 but it is a bit rich for the Government to make cheap party political points by spreading fears around the country that my party would privatise the health service. We would not privatise the national health service.
  We believe in the NHS, in the way that the vast majority of people do. They want the national health service and they are content to pay their taxes to finance it. I wish that Ministers, Labour Members and prospective parliamentary candidates would stop this nonsense of suggesting that we would not keep the NHS on the basic premise on which it was established.
  Such strands of propaganda are not unique in history. It is thought by some that if a big enough lie is spread often enough, the drip, drip, drip effect will convince people that there is some truth in it. I was outraged by a document that was put through my constituents' letter boxes two months ago, "Labour Rose", published by the Labour party at Millbank. It categorically tells people that, under the Conservatives
  If you need a hip replacement or other major operations you will have to go private. If you need to see a GP you will be charged under the Conservatives.
  That is an outright lie. To show that Labour has learned the lessons of dishonest propaganda from others who are far better at it, Labour tries to give that document authenticity by incorporating a little box headed:
  This is how much the Tories want you to pay.
  Hip replacement, hernia and cataract removal operations are all included, with price bands presented as though they were factual. To add insult to injury, it says:
  Health Privatisation. Guaranteed. The Tories would make patients go private for hip and knee replacements and other major operations.
  That is a lie. There is no other word for it.
  I assure Labour Members that the Tory party will not vote for privatisation because we do not believe in it.
  Mr. Hesford: Which Tory party?
  Mr. Burns: That was very funny. The hon. Gentleman tried to get a laugh but did not raise one.
  The Conservative party believes in the national health service, as it has shown not only in every general election since 1948 but in the way that it put more and more money into the NHS during its stewardship and sought to raise standards of patient care.Labour Members may, with total sincerity, disagree with some of the reforms that Conservative Governments have implemented, but they were introduced with the most sincere of motives—to improve and enhance patient care. Labour Members will say that we want an expanded private health sector to work with the NHS. If individuals wish to spend their money on private care, they are entitled to do so. I certainly do not believe that anyone should be made to do so and we have no such proposals. It causes me no problems if people want to spend their money on private health care—no more than if any Government, including the present Administration, want to spend some of the taxpayer's money on treatment in
  1112
  private hospitals because they want to deal with waiting lists. If that means that the patient will be treated more quickly, I have no problem with it, provided that treatment is free at the point of delivery to that patient and the NHS picks up the bill.
  I hope that nonsensical claims about privatisation will stop, because we do not believe in it. Privatisation is not going to happen and it is not the sort of thing that hon. Members such as me would agree to or vote for in the Lobby in a month of Sundays.
  Liz Blackman: The Opposition spokesperson on health stated in The Sunday Times:
  Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not high-tech or expensive, like hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations, which currently involve long waiting times. We could then leave expensive treatments like cancer therapy to the NHS."
  That is on the record. Is the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) distancing himself from his party spokesperson? If so, is it not correct—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) suggested—that there are several Conservative parties?
  Mr. Burns: I will answer the hon. Lady's question in my own way. She will have to ask my hon. Friend but, not wishing to duck the issue, I will give my interpretation and understanding of his remarks. If private health insurance companies covered such operations for people who have voluntarily taken out policies, it would relieve pressure on the NHS for the more expensive operations. That is very different from saying that my party insists that individuals take out private health insurance to cover cataract and other relatively minor, non-emergency treatment to relieve the financial pressures on the NHS and fund major operations.
  Liz Blackman: Does the hon. Gentleman support his party's proclaimed policy of introducing tax relief on private medical care premiums?
  Mr. Burns: It would be perverse of me not to because I voted for that policy when Margaret Thatcher's Government introduced it in the late 1980s.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: For elderly people.
  Mr. Burns: For elderly people. I do not have a problem with that policy if it would help more elderly people, for whom tax relief would make all the difference by allowing them to afford private care. That is a matter of individual choice.
  The bottom line is that I could not under any circumstances support or agree to the privatisation of the NHS. I do not doubt that my party has no intention whatever of seeking to privatise the health service. I hope that Labour—and the Liberal Democrats, who have always enjoyed getting into the gutter to attack both the Government and the official Opposition—will stop pursuing that tack, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) was doing this afternoon. There is no truth in it.
  A matter of particular concern to my constituents is hospital waiting lists. Notwithstanding the national figures, there are problems in parts of the country. Waiting lists in my trust area are probably among the

  1113
  worst in Britain. My constituents are disappointed and confused when they hear that waiting lists have gone down elsewhere. They were promised by my opponents at the last general election that under a Labour Government, all waiting lists in mid-Essex would reduce dramatically. However, there has not been a single day since 2 May 1997 when the in-patient waiting list has dipped below the level at which it was on 31 March 1997. There are at present 1,600 more patients on the list than when the Government came to power, and the waiting list to get on to a waiting list has soared, as I said to the hon. Member for South Swindon, from 555 people waiting more than 13 weeks to 2,946 people waiting to see a consultant to get on to the waiting list.
  That is unacceptable, particularly because of the promises that were made to my constituents by my Labour opponent, by Labour shadow Ministers at the time, and by the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Prime Minister. My constituents believed that the promised improvements would happen for them, but sadly, whatever is happening elsewhere seems to be passing them by.
  I passionately hope that the Government are successful in getting the waiting list down in mid-Essex. I am sure that Ministers do not want my constituents to wait longer than most other people in the country for hospital treatment, if only because an improvement would shut me up and they would not have to listen to my speeches any more. I am united with them. I want the waiting list down because I do not want my constituents to have to wait so long.
  Like the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I hear tales at my surgery and in correspondence, of pensioner constituents of mine having to use their life savings for non-emergency private treatment of painful conditions, because they cannot face the pain while they wait nine months, 15 months or whatever for a hip replacement operation or other treatment on the NHS. It is unacceptable.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are enormously politically partisan and that there has been a vendetta against the home counties? The appalling situation that my hon. Friend describes is shared by my constituency and many others.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Come on!
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am amused to hear the hon. Gentleman's merriment. I know that he does not have one in nine people waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment. I know that the figure is only one in 50 in the Prime Minister's constituency. However, there has been a severe deterioration in the home counties because of the squeeze on social services and the changes to the funding formula. The problems in the home counties are very severe indeed. Labour Members laugh or say how successful—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Deputy Speaker is not laughing.
  Mr. Burns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. My constituents and many others in Essex were extremely grateful to her
  1114
  when she was the Secretary of State for Health. When the resource allocation working party was ended, she gave a commitment to the now Lord Newton of Braintree, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and me that she would start using a per capita basis for funding. For five years, we started to catch up, after the problems that had arisen from our finances being drained into the east end of London. Sadly, one of the first acts of the present Secretary of State as Minister of State when he took office in 1997 was to fine-tune what my right hon. Friend had done. That means that my health area gets £1 million less a year than it would have got without that fine-tuning.
  In conclusion, I hope that hon. Members will stop the party political denigration of our position on the health service by misrepresenting it as privatisation. It is not privatisation. Many of us passionately disagree with the idea of a privatised health service and could never support it. I also hope that more is done to ensure, especially in mid-Essex, that waiting lists come down, and that a reduction in waiting times is the next step, so that my constituents can benefit.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I must say to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that the history of the national health service over the past two decades and the debate about privatisation shows the Conservative party hoist by its own petard.
  Everything that the Conservatives did when they were in office suggested that they would go down the road of privatisation. The introduction of the internal market and of fundholding made it clear what the line was at the time. Many speeches made from the Opposition Front Bench since May 1997, with talk of Trojan horses and assisting private health care, give every indication that if they could go down that road, they would.
  The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said that the Conservative party had always been in favour of the NHS. He was rewriting history slightly. When the vote was taken in the House of Commons in 1948, the Conservatives voted against the NHS coming into being, but I give credit to all Opposition Members for the fact that for decades after 1948, there was a consensus in the country that the NHS should remain and continue to give the wonderful service that it has given to generations of people in Britain—until the 1980s and the Thatcher Government.
  It was then that the consensus broke up, not just in the public sector and in relation to health, but in many other parts of the public sector. If that causes Opposition Members embarrassment, it serves them jolly well right for what they did to the public sector during all the years that they were in office.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to peddle history, but I do not want it thought that I did not report it correctly. Yes, there was that vote, but it was not a matter of principle. The proposal was agreed by the coalition Government and agreed right up to the legislation. We had no real opposition to it. If we look back at the records, we will find how events happened as they did. As for the business of moving towards privatisation, I have tried to convince many in the Labour

  1115
  party to accept that there is a role for the private sector. That is shown by the social insurance polices that operate successfully in Europe.
  Mr. Barron: I do not want to go down that road. The right hon. Gentleman said how wonderful the NHS was, then he listed six or seven countries where, I assume, he was arguing that the situation was better. On the question of social insurance, who uses our national health service? Elderly people and young children. How can the majority of people who use the NHS benefit from tax breaks—even if there are tax incentives, as there were in the past, which the Government rightly argued impacted badly on the NHS by taking resources away from where they were needed? That does not square, and it is time that the Opposition admitted it.
  At the beginning of the debate, we heard from the Opposition Dispatch Box that the Government claimed to have dismantled the internal market, yet that Lord Winston said that it still exists. One or two of us shouted, "And what do you think?", but there was no reply.
  Mr. Lilley: What do you think?
  Mr. Barron: I think that the internal market has been dismantled, and a jolly good thing too. It was about time, because it was the vehicle whereby Baroness Thatcher's Government would have privatised the NHS, and it is about time that Conservative Members admitted it.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barron: I will not give way; I must make progress. I have enjoyed listening to the debate, especially the opening speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). It is a pity that he is not present. I thought that the first 10 minutes of his speech were quite good. It was like watching "What the Papers Say", with one quote after another. However, he then advanced the fantastic and incredible argument that the Labour Government send people round the NHS looking for good news stories so that they can get them out into the media.
  That comes from someone who supported the previous Government. For the last 10 years of their term of office, not one new hospital was built in the NHS. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman will now say that the announcement last week of the opening of the new hospital in Carlisle, or the announcement that another 36 hospitals are to be built by the Labour Government—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barron: No, let me finish my point. There is one of the culprits. I will give way to her in a moment.
  The idea that the £3 billion to fund the 37 new hospitals is part of a Machiavellian plot by the Labour Government to try to pull the wool over people's eyes is nonsense, especially when we consider the previous Government's shameful record on hospital building. We ought to sing from the roof tops the Government's actions in improving the health service, and especially in building new hospitals.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I invite the hon. Gentleman to come on a tour with me of the various plaques that I have opened.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Hospitals.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, I meant hospitals.
  Mr. Barron: A plaque is not a hospital. The right hon. Lady well knows that new hospitals were not built under the previous Administration—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I appeal for calm. The points are matters of debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fiction."] Order. They are not fiction, but matters of debate. Opposition Members will be called to rebut the hon. Gentleman's case. We must have calm.
  Dr. Brand rose—
  Mr. Barron: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Brand: The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) reminds me that the previous Government opened a hospital on the Isle of Wight. Unfortunately, it needed repairs worth £15 million because it was built so appallingly by the right hon. Lady's cronies in the region.
  Mr. Barron: We are time limited, so I shall move on.
  I fundamentally disagree with the motion's suggestion of political interference in the day-to-day management of the NHS. It is not true. Ministers are probably examining the NHS in greater detail than they have done in the past. There are good reasons for that.
  I have sat on the General Medical Council since the middle of last year. This morning, the British Medical Association conference passed a resolution that was hitting the headlines as I came to the House. It relates to the Government's actions. The BMA has passed a motion of no confidence in the GMC. Given that many members of the GMC are also members of the medical profession, and that it is a statutory, self-regulating body, members of the BMA have virtually passed a motion of no confidence in themselves, especially when we consider the way in which people are elected to the GMC.
  I agree with some of the comments about the need for structural changes in the GMC. An internal paper is circulating about its governance, and we are considering the matter. I understand that the BMA wants delays in disciplinary procedures to be tackled. Next week, the House will consider a regulation, which the Government are introducing, which will assist with that. More lay members will be elected on to the GMC. That will mean that we can speed up the disciplinary process and reduce waiting times. The BMA is also worried about more regular testing and revalidation.
  Today's headlines suggest a conflict: the BMA versus the GMC. That does a disservice to the issues. The real issue is doctors and patients' confidence in them. Revalidation is led by the GMC, but it complements the work of the Committee on Health Improvement, and other plans that the Government have put in train since May 1997. I compliment the Government on their proposals

  1117
  for clinical governance and improvement. Improvements have to be made to help all our constituents to get better treatment from the NHS.
  Revalidation was hotly debated in the GMC. A minority of people opposed it, but they were heavily defeated. I understand that a tiny minority opposed it at the BMA, but they, too, were defeated. My hon. Friend the Minister can take heart from that. We recognise the need for change. We also acknowledge that the Government's clinical governance and clinical appraisal proposals, and the GMC's changes, will ensure that patients have more confidence in doctors. In the majority of cases, such confidence is high; the proposals and changes will ensure that it is maintained.
  Medical regulation must modernise to fulfil the public's changing requirements. The GMC, the Government, the BMA, the royal colleges and health service managers have a role to play in that. The public will not accept unnecessary delays by any of the parties. Modernisation is moving at a quick pace.
  In view of media reports in the past few weeks, especially about one specific case, it is important to progress quickly. In years gone by—I do not place any party political blame on anyone—people in clinical practice have not been appraised. Sometimes they have run single-handed practices, and there has been no peer pressure to ensure that they keep up to date and provide a good service, as the majority of doctors do. Sadly, any shortcomings that come before the GMC are blazoned in the press, and people could be forgiven for believing that no control existed. The Government and the GMC are trying to put better systems in place for effective annual revalidation or reappraisal.
  I hope that I have two minutes to mention not only the changes that have taken place in the past two years, but those that are imminent in primary care. My constituency has a primary care group; it is one of three in the borough of Rotherham. We are in a position to apply to become a primary care trust. A debate about that has taken place. It seems to most people that having one primary care trust is sensible. I do not know whether there are any guidelines about that.
  I wonder whether there are guidelines about another issue that is up for heated debate in Rotherham: mental health services. Do the Government or the regional office of the NHS have any guidance about whether those services should remain in a primary care trust or whether they could be floated off into a bigger trust? There is a worry in our area that if we become a primary care trust, and mental health services are not part of it, they will go to a neighbouring trust somewhere in South Yorkshire and we shall lose our local influence on mental health services.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) described mental health services as Cinderella services. That might have been true in the past, but such services are vital in our health service and our local communities. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether there is any guidance about including mental health services in primary care trusts?
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not want to cut into the
  1118
  time of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) because I wanted to be courteous. However, page 386 of Erskine May states:
  Expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference include:
  The imputation of false or unavowed motives.
  The misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation.
  The hon. Gentleman said that no hospitals were opened under the Conservative Government. Had we been given the opportunity, we would have given many examples of hospitals that had been opened.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear me, but when there was much excitement earlier in the debate about the hon. Gentleman's comments, I said that there would be an opportunity for Opposition Members to rebut his case. All that needs to happen to put the record straight is for an hon. Member to say, "Hospitals were built at that time". That is why we have debates.
  5 pm
  Sir Raymond Whitney: In response to the misapprehensions about hospital building that have been distributed by Labour Members, let me advise the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that the hospital building programme has been cut back only once in the 50-year history of the national health service and that was in 1976 under the Labour Government on the orders of the International Monetary Fund, when the accounts of this country were effectively under foreign control.
  I begin by offering the House two predictions. First, just as we have heard nothing new yet from the Government on the future development of the health service, I predict that by the end of this debate, including the wind-up by the Minister of State, we shall have heard nothing new. For 50 years, Labour Members have had nothing new to say about the health service, so they are certainly not about to start now. My second prediction may seem a little presumptuous as it concerns my remarks. Either they will be totally ignored because the facts that I am about to offer will be too uncomfortable, or they will be deliberately and wilfully misconstrued.
  For half a century there has been an intellectual blight on how we treat health care. We have heard it again today. It all starts from the assumption that, allegedly, the Conservative party was against the national health service. Hon. Members ought to know that that is absolute nonsense. During the Second Reading debate on the National Health Service Bill in the House of Lords, the then Labour spokesman said that the Bill was not the product of any single party or any single Government. He said that it was in fact the outcome of a concerted effort, extending over a long period of years and involving doctors, laymen and Government to improve the efficiency of our medical services. There is no doubt that it was a joint effort.
  The health service was based on the 1944 White Paper which was produced by Henry Willink, a Conservative, who was Health Minister in the coalition Government at the time. Although Conservative Members, perhaps misguidedly, voted against Aneurin Bevan's Bill—just weeks earlier Herbert Morrison had spoken against its content—the Conservative health spokesman said in the

  1119
  Second Reading debate that he was anxious to clarify the position of the Conservative party with regard to the principle of the national, comprehensive, 100 per cent. health service. He said that the Conservatives accepted that principle, as they had in 1944. Labour Members should accept those realities instead of continuing to perpetrate misinformation.
  The intellectual blight that I mentioned occurred because we became used to persuading ourselves that the national health service was the envy of the world. I wish that it were. Sadly, that has seldom been the case. Had our national health service been the envy of the world, one would have expected country after country to have adopted the same system. As we know, that has not happened.
  Sadly, evidence has steadily mounted that the structure that was put together in 1946 has not met modern conditions. Indeed, as long ago as 1967, the British Medical Association recognised that it was falling short and set up a committee under Dr. Ivor Jones. It reported in 1970 that
  performance … is shown to compare unfavourably with that of many other countries in several respects … there is inadequate finance both in regard to capital and running costs … the imperfections of our health service are clearly visible … staffing is deficient at all levels and many sections are underpaid … it appears probable that Britain must think in terms of additional expenditure on medical care of an order which no government has ever contemplated …
  That was written 30 years ago and it is true today.
  When I became a junior Health Minister in 1984, I did not accept that point of view. I took the point of view of every other Health Minister of both parties—that we had two jobs. One was to get as much money out of the Treasury as we could and the other was to spend it as sensibly as possible. At the time, I did not consider that there was any possibility of changing the basic 1946 structure. After one year of wrestling with the problem, I concluded that it had to change. That conclusion is increasingly being reached by people who know about the health service. As hon. Members may recall, it was voiced by Lord Winston for 24 hours before he was silenced by the Government machine.
  There is now overwhelming evidence that our health service is not up to international standards. The latest league table puts us in 18th position. Let me offer hon. Members a few more statistics. I hope that they do not find them too unpalatable. On the basic challenge of mortality, in respect of life expectancy at the age of 60, the United Kingdom came 19th out of the 23 countries examined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We are on a level with Turkey.
  On health outcomes, in respect of heart disease and cancer survival rates we are at or near the bottom of the European league table. In the United Kingdom a person with stomach cancer has an 8 per cent. chance of surviving five years. In France, his chances are three times greater. In the United States, his chances are four times greater.
  Mr. Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Raymond Whitney: No. There is a time limit on speeches and I need to make progress. If there is time, I shall give way later in my speech.
  1120
  In December 1998, the Economist Intelligence Unit survey placed us 14th out of 25 nations. It assessed that we were losing 200 million working days a year due to sickness, much of which was due to the deficiencies of the national health service. It estimated that that was costing the nation some £12 billion in lost production.
  Those are the facts. In debate after debate in the House hon. Members representing all three major parties resolutely refuse to face up to them. In the United Kingdom we have 4.5 nurses per 1,000 people. The figure for Germany is twice that. We have 0.4 dentists per 1,000 people—half what they have in Germany. Of all the OECD countries only Albania and Turkey have fewer doctors per head of population than we have.
  We all know that health service morale has never been lower. The medical profession especially feels under attack, and it is alarming to see the sensitivity among doctors. Some of my hon. Friends have already mentioned the deep damage that the juggling of the waiting lists has done to clinical priorities.
  Those are the problems and we have to open our minds to them, instead of dwelling on misinformation about what happened in 1946. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, under the previous Conservative Government, the budget went from £9 billion when we took over to £40 billion by the time we left office, so we have all tried. For example, we increased the number of people treated in hospital by 80 per cent. and the budget went up by 75 per cent. in real terms. The present Government are also trying, but the question is whether we can ever get the results we want using public finance.
  In terms of total expenditure on health, the most recent figures available show that we spend 6.9 per cent. of our GDP on health, and of all the OECD countries, only Ireland spends less. The claim is that we will catch up with the Germans' spending. To do so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find a further £45 billion. That is an inconceivable figure. However, even if we did achieve that over five years, by that time the Germans would have moved on. They are not satisfied with their level of health care, even though they spend some $2,000 per person and we spend $1,200 per person.
  Cash is not everything, and we can achieve more through our NHS than the Americans do with their vast expenditure. Even my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are, understandably—because of the rubbish we hear from Labour—scared of dealing with the facts that I am setting before the House. Many people do not realise what they are being deprived of, compared with what other societies—comparable to us in wealth and economic structure—provide for their people. For example, our waiting times are unheard of in continental countries. They would laugh at such waiting times.
  We must ask, therefore, whether there is another way to run the NHS. I mentioned the BMA committee that reported in 1970, and it concluded that the answer was an insurance-based system. That does not mean pushing some of the work on to the private sector. Some of the arguments that we hear from the Government against giving greater emphasis to private insurance are valid. In my opinion, we need a totally new structure. It would not be revolutionary, because I could name 20 countries that have similar structures, and they provide much better health outcomes than we do.

  1121
  An average of £915 is spent for every man, woman and child in the country. Under the insurance-based system that the Jones committee advocated in April 1970, we could offer everybody an insurance voucher of £700. I support that system and, indeed, I wrote a little book on it in 1988. The system would give us all the chance to contribute for ourselves, and that is the way forward. No Chancellor will ever be able to find that astronomical sum of £45 billion, and therefore we must have a new system.
  That new system is obvious, when we consider society now and how much better it is than the one for which the NHS was constructed in 1946, when the decisions were taken. Then, we were impoverished, worn out and on our knees. Now, the average family is four times better off in real terms. It spends some £2,000 to £3,000 a year on its holidays and Christmas presents. Most people would want to supplement their health cover. If they did, they would feel involved in the health system, and that they had some ownership of it.
  I realise that that is a difficult pill to swallow. Most of us have said for 50 years that the national health service would be wonderful if only we could spend another few billion. That is what the House and the Labour Government are saying again now, but it will not work.
  There is money in the Exchequer. Of the £915 per head of population that is spent on the NHS every year, we could spend £700 on insurance vouchers. That would leave £215 for those who really need protecting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is time limited.
  5.15 pm
  Ann Keen: I shall begin by using my nursing skills, as a clinical diagnosis of the occupants of the Opposition Benches reveals that some Conservative Members are suffering from an outbreak of what I recognise as amnesia.
  Like the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I too worked in the national health service. I was a nurse for 20 years, and I was working the afternoon shift in a medical ward on the day that Mrs. Thatcher was elected. Her Government promised that they would not privatise the health service in the same way as they privatised the electricity, gas and other services—they knew that the British people would not let them get away with it. Instead, they set up a clever framework that allowed them to dismantle the system gradually by chipping away at it bit by bit.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring is not in his place, but he is very worried about the cleanliness of our hospitals. I am too, as was the ward domestic with whom I worked for some years. I was a ward sister, and she worked permanently on my ward. She worked there every day and looked after the ward as if it were her own home. The evening cleaning shift were not just cleaners: they were domestic staff and part of the ward team. They cleaned the wards, looked out for patients' needs and ran errands for them—until the contracting-out process began.
  The guidelines set by the previous Conservative Government required that contracts were awarded to the lowest tender. That meant that many low-paid health service workers had to accept short-term contracts at even lower rates of pay. Those rates did not equal today's minimum wage—which the Conservative party voted
  1122
  against, just as it voted against the inception of the health service. The Conservative Government were prepared to have a hospital cleaning force who were low in skills and poorly paid. That is not acceptable: hospitals must be clean if infection is to be kept down.
  Contrary to popular belief, I did not work with Florence Nightingale, but she said that hospitals should do the sick no harm. The truth, however, is that they can do the sick an awful lot of harm. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take note of the problem and to put measures to correct it into immediate effect. Permanent domestic staff must be restored to wards and hospital clinics and given responsibility for cleanliness there on a daily basis. That would contrast with what happens with people working on a contractual basis, who move on once they have done their stint with the cleaning fluid in any particular area.
  I was working in the health service when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced his new version of the NHS. He travelled to the privatised Limehouse studios by boat along the Thames to make a video for NHS workers. The video's presenter was Nick Ross, who also presents a programme called "Crimewatch UK". I am sure that it is merely a coincidence, but I am convinced that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's innovations amounted to the biggest crime ever inflicted on the British people.
  The internal market that was established set hospital against hospital. I worked in the London area, where research centres and famous hospitals competed with each other instead of doing what they do best—advancing knowledge by sharing results, which is the central ethos of research.
  At my interview for the West Middlesex hospital in 1985, I was shown the plans for the new hospital in which I would be working in 1987. I am pleased to say that, under a Labour Government, we will at last have that new hospital. The project is on schedule, the contractors are in place, and work will commence at the end of this year or the beginning of next.
  The sale of the South Middlesex hospital took place in 1985 and £12 million was raised to go towards the new building at the West Middlesex hospital. Alas, the then Government had got their figures wrong for the Chelsea and Westminster and seemed to be £12 million out—so the money was moved to that project. How interesting; markets have always produced winners and losers.
  This time, I want the national plan to make sure that we are all winners. Much has been said about choice, but one does not choose to have appendicitis, to have cancer, to have an accident, to become frail or to have a chronic condition. People want a high standard of treatment in the hospital that is closest to them—unless it has a specialist element for which one may have to travel. We want the hospital to be of a high standard in terms of staff and resources.
  Mr. Lilley: Does the hon. Lady accept that some people might want to go to a hospital that is some distance away, but is near their relatives; that some might want to go to a hospital that has single-sex rather than mixed-sex wards; that some might want to go to a hospital with a better success record than the local one; and that some

  1123
  might want to go to a hospital with a shorter waiting time than the local one? Should they be prevented, for ideological reasons, from exercising that choice?
  Ann Keen: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that, sometimes, we must look at particular aspects of individual patients. We always have done that and we will continue to do so. If specialist treatment is needed, there are specialist facilities.
  Choice was not available under the internal market. The only time people had any choice was if they collapsed outside the hospital of their choice. However, one certainly did not enter the contractual system out of choice; that only ever worked for a small group of people. That fact is stated by professionals of no political persuasion.
  For the future, we want everyone to have a national standard. Standards should be the same and there should be clinical governance throughout all professions. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is rightly interested in his constituency waiting list, but he should discuss with managers why that list exists. In my local hospital we have looked at modernising the systems.
  A patient with a suspected hernia goes to the GP, and GPs are very capable of diagnosing a hernia. There is no need, in most instances, to refer that patient to a consultant to have the diagnosis confirmed, and then for the patient to wait again for the hernia to be repaired. The GP should be able to use information technology, and set up an appointment for the day of surgery. That is happening in parts of Isleworth and west London, so the hon. Gentleman needs to ask why it is not happening in his area. That is where the money is going and what modernization means.
  Mr. Burns: I have meetings on a quarterly basis, and have done so now for two and a half years. As the situation is so bad, I have also had meetings with Ministers who, unfortunately, cannot tell me why my trust is worse than so many others. Part of the reason is lack of funding, despite the increases announced by the Chancellor.
  Ann Keen: I cannot accept that funding is the reason. We must always look at the way in which we work.
  I want to mention two aspects of care with regard to the national plan. The winter pressure, as it is described, can be felt at all times. So why are many older people admitted into hospital from accident and emergency departments when a skilled primary care team, along with people from social services, could care intensively for them at home? A 24-hour, community-led service is essential for many of our older people. They can have treatment at home as long as such a service is available. In that way, patients are not disorientated because they are not moved from their homes. They do not have to stay in hospital beds for weeks and then encounter difficulties in rehabilitating themselves when they are back home.
  My final point about the plan is cancer care. We need to look at the prescribing of chemotherapy drugs. A professor at Hammersmith hospital has told me that the country's prescribing bill is higher for laxatives than it is for chemotherapy. We need to look into the causes of
  1124
  some of that prescribing, given that our position in the European league tables is very low for prescribing chemotherapy drugs, but our mortality rates are high. I want there to be a national cancer centre. There should be consensus on many of the cancer drugs, such as Taxol, about which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recently made an announcement.
  I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel very positive about the health service. It will continue to be very demanding, and the skills of all the staff need to be taken into account. We should see a little more humility from Conservative Members because, without question, their short-term, market-led health service failed the people of this country. It will take all of us to ensure that we have a health service that we can be proud of in the future.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: One abiding memory of the previous election was of meeting some nurses at a charity fair in the town hall in my constituency. It was a couple of days before the election, and I was talking to half a dozen nurses, many of whom I had known for many years and many of whom I knew to be Conservative supporters. Their eyes were shining—they were so thrilled that, at last, the national health service was going to be saved.
  The Labour party was incredibly successful in persuading people that it could save the national health service. It said in its manifesto:
  if the Conservatives are elected again there may well not be an NHS in five years' time—either national nor comprehensive.
  It went on:
  Our fundamental purpose is simple but hugely important: to restore the NHS as a public service working co-operatively for patients, not a commercial business driven by competition.
  We cannot let this debate pass without saying that the previous Government were extremely successful in reorganising the national health service. Nobody who studies the subject can doubt that, for the amount of resources that are put into the national health service, it is successful and efficient. We were successful in putting together a system of providers and purchasers; we introduced market forces, which were successful in producing a better national health service.
  This Government, meanwhile, have imposed extra burdens on the health service. The pensions cost in the health service, for instance, is about £495 million more than it was when the Government came to power. The working time directive and the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will add extra burdens to the national health service too.
  We all remember when, in July 1998, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the amount provided for health in the comprehensive spending review for 1998–99. He announced an extra £18 billion, by double and triple counting the amounts in question. He added the £3 billion increase to the £2 billion increase to the £2 billion increase, and instead of arriving at a figure of £8.7 billion, he arrived at a figure of £18 billion. There has been a lot of double counting in the NHS finances.
  What has actually happened? Notably, Lord Winston said that the national health service was
  gradually deteriorating because we blame everything on the previous government.

  1125
  Another doctor working in the national health service—Margaret Cook, the former wife of the Foreign Secretary—said:
  The NHS is still grossly underfunded and Labour have done not a thing.
  The King's Fund, talking of the changes in clinical priorities, said that the
  national waiting list diverts attention away from the issues that matter most to patients. By focusing simply on the number of people waiting for treatment after seeing a hospital consultant, the list ignores the time people are waiting and the severity of their need.
  That is why, when the Government came to power, in June 1997, the percentage of people waiting more than a year for an operation was 3.9 and, after three years, it is now 4.9, which is a 1 per cent. increase. Those are the people who have to wait more than 12 months for their operation. They are in the same category as a constituent who came to see me about a year ago. She had been told in January 1999 that the waiting time for her triple heart bypass would be nine months. The operation took place 18 months later.
  In my constituency, the waiting time for cardiac surgery has gone from nine to 18 months within a year. I see that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has rejoined us in the Chamber. In a written answer recently, he told me that the waiting time for cardiac surgery in my area was 15 months, but that the Government's ambition was to get it down to 12. That answer was not correct, as the waiting time is 18 months. Therefore this Government in action have not been successful nationally.
  What about the local situation in the area that I represent, the Portsmouth-Gosport area? The News, the local newspaper, reported in January 1999:
  Relatives and friends of patients in Portsmouth hospital are being asked to help wash and feed their loved ones because of a drastic shortage of nurses.
  Notices are being handed out at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, and St. Mary's Hospital, Milton, asking for help to wash, shave and feed patients.
  It is the first time Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs QA and St. Mary's, has approached relatives, friends and carers for help in this way.
  The newspaper also reported Doug Dann, the chairman of the patients' watchdog, the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Community Health Council, as saying:
  This is the worst winter I remember in terms of pressure.
  In the article, one nurse, who asked not to be named, said:
  Everybody's thoroughly fed up. Staff are leaving in droves because they have had enough.
  Patients and their relatives keep moaning at us all the time when we're struggling to make the best of a bad job.
  A year later, in January 2000, The News reported:
  Earlier this week, there were only three beds free at QA and St. Mary's hospitals. Lin Kennett, operational director for medicine at the Portsmouth hospitals' trust, which runs both hospitals, said: "This is the worst I have known in the 25 years since I have been here."
  The newspaper reports Keith Murray, the Portsmouth branch convenor of the Royal College of Nursing union, as saying:
  Staff are absolutely exhausted. I don't know how they can carry on at the pace they are. Some nurses are going off-duty in tears because they can't give the care they want to give.
  1126
  In April, which is not a time of bad weather, The News reported a crisis in Portsmouth hospitals, saying:
  The news comes as new Patient's Charter figures for Portsmouth hospitals show the worst recorded performance in two-and-a-half years—
  an interesting period, as it happened to be the time the Labour Government had been in power. The article continued:
  There were 251 operations cancelled at Portsmouth hospitals from last December to March. Earlier this year The News reported Portsmouth hospitals were suffering their worst beds shortage for 25 years … spokeswoman … Mrs Forsyth, said both hospitals were still on red alert—an emergency status to show a lack of beds. They have been on red alert since mid-December which is a record.
  In January 2000 The News also reported that 50 patients had been transferred from the Portsmouth hospitals to the Royal Hospital Haslar because of a shortage of beds.
  What are the Government doing about that? Colleagues will perhaps not believe this, but the Government propose to close my local hospital. The Royal Hospital Haslar serves as the district general for my area of Gosport. It is a defence medical hospital. In 1994, the Conservative Government chose Haslar as the only tri-service hospital and concentrated all the resources of Army, Navy and Air Force medicine there, together with small Ministry of Defence hospital units at three other locations in the south of England. Yet the Labour Government, to the disbelief of many people involved, in December 1998 announced the closure of Haslar and the intention to create a new centre of excellence elsewhere, at that time undefined.
  Many people within defence medical services hoped that the new centre of medical excellence would be either at St. Thomas's and Guy's in London or possibly at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. There was even some suggestion that it should be in Newcastle. It is going to be in Birmingham, which is probably the largest city with no particularly strong services connection. It has no strong connection with the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. The people in my area are incredulous that the Government are pressing ahead with this plan.
  When the announcement was first made in December 1998, I announced a rally and march, thinking we might have a few hundred or, possibly, a few thousand people. I was staggered to find that we had 22,000 people marching to Haslar hospital, everyone dedicated and committed to maintaining its existence. That is just the civilian side of Haslar hospital—the demand by local civilians.
  Within the armed forces there is a similar determination that the hospital must not close. Already defence medical services are losing many doctors and nurses who, in 1994–95, were told that they should move to the Gosport area to the only tri-service hospital and are now told that in the medium to long term they will have to move to Birmingham. They do not want to go; they are voting with their feet and leaving.
  Sandra Gidley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to a closure of wards at Southampton general hospital people are being transferred to Haslar? Does he agree that is further evidence that Haslar should remain open?
  Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important and effective argument. There are so many

  1127
  other arguments that one could make—for example, the links developed over the years between Haslar and Southampton and Portsmouth universities—that local people feel it is overwhelmingly important that the hospital should remain.
  The alternative is to travel to Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham, which is a journey of some 10 to 12 miles depending on which part of the constituency one lives in, along heavily congested roads. The A32 is the main road from Gosport to Fareham and is notoriously slow. There is deep concern that ambulances will not be able to get to Queen Alexandra hospital and that lives will be lost.
  Admittedly, a minor accident treatment centre has been opened at Haslar, so to a certain extent the Haslar taskforce which I formed and chair has been successful in persuading the Government in all their manifestations to maintain an accident centre at Haslar. In addition, the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire health authority has proposed that Haslar will remain open under NHS control, and that the main part of Haslar, which is called the crosslink block, will be transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the NHS and the local health authority will be able to run out-patient facilities there. That is good news. The number of out-patients will increase from the 55,000 currently treated to 60,000 in future.
  That is not good enough. We in the Haslar taskforce are drawing up a paper which I have called, "Haslar hospital 2020—our vision for the future". We want to spell out what facilities can best be maintained at Haslar. Clearly, the world-leading MRI scanner and the world-leading hyperbaric unit should continue at Haslar. We also need beds. With the problems in Portsmouth hospitals that I have outlined, there is a dramatic shortage of beds which is not likely to improve.
  There is a private finance initiative to expand Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham and almost double it in size. During the time of its expansion, it will be a building site and top quality medical facilities cannot be run from there. Our proposal, therefore, will be that Haslar be given a surge capacity while Queen Alexandra hospital is being extended; and that having been increased in size to take the surge necessary to cope with the building work on a congested site, Haslar will stay "surged".
  Nothing less than a continuation of the Haslar facilities will be satisfactory locally. My constituents feel strongly about that—as do a large number of people in the defence medical services and the armed forces. They believe that the Government have made a mistake and that it should be only a matter of time before the Government go back on their decision and keep Haslar open.
  5.40 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am pleased that the Opposition have chosen the subject of priorities in the national health service.
  I have been in the Chamber for almost all of the debate and have listened with care and interest to the contributions. However, I am disappointed. The debate was supposed to be on priorities in the NHS, so I hoped that the Opposition would lay out their stall for their policies to further and improve the service, but I have heard only a litany of complaints and moans and groans
  1128
  about the state of the NHS—how run down it has become; how low morale is and how patients are suffering. We have heard that time and again. We have not heard what the Opposition propose to do about it.
  It took an intervention from me on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to find out the true Tory intentions for the NHS. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend because, by quoting the statements of Opposition spokespersons, he was able to tell me what they had in mind. Perhaps the Opposition are embarrassed; perhaps they do not feel happy about what they are trying to do.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: I shall not give way just yet—I will do so if there is time.
  Perhaps the Opposition do not want to tell the public what they have in mind. I am a charitable person, so I do not like to run people down unnecessarily. I am even prepared to admit that the Opposition have honourable intentions in that they really want improvements in patient care. I think they do. However, there is a real difference in the way that we seem to want to achieve that.
  I believe that the health service needs improvement and that the Opposition want better patient care, but there is a fundamental difference—clear blue water—between the parties. Today's debate offers us an opportunity to examine that distinction. Both parties agree that the NHS is underfunded and that there are not enough doctors, nurses, hospital beds or facilities. Patients wait too long—waiting times and waiting lists are too great. Both sides of the House agree. I have no problem about that.
  The problem arises over what the two parties intend to do about the matter. Labour have made it clear that we are wholly committed to a publicly funded NHS, improving every year as resources become available. We aim to meet the European average on health as soon as practically possible given the available resources. I am pleased that the Government are making real improvements in health care every year.
  The Opposition, on the other hand, want to do something different. I do not accuse them of wanting to privatise the health service—I do not believe that is what they want to do. That is not on their agenda. However, they do want to increase resources by increasing the private element in the health service. They want to increase health resources, using private sector money, by encouraging people to take out private insurance. Even the Opposition probably agree that that is what they are trying to do.
  Labour, however, want the health service to be almost completely publicly funded.
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Does he acknowledge that, in trying to reach average European health spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, there is a problem? In the European countries to which he refers, spending on privately financed health care is much higher than in the UK; on average, it is nearly double.
  Dr. Stoate: I accept that we have a different philosophy from our European partners, but our philosophy is correct, as I shall explain. Let us consider the consequences of the Opposition's proposals to increase the number of people

  1129
  who take out private insurance to fund their so-called non-life-threatening, so-called non-urgent operations, such as hip or knee replacements, or treatment for cataracts or hernias.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) suggested tax relief on private health insurance; he said that he had voted for that under the Thatcher Government. What would happen if that were implemented? I quote the Baroness Thatcher. In her book, "The Downing Street Years", she stated:
  Tax relief for private health insurance would in many cases help those who could already afford private cover and so fail to deliver a net increase in private sector provision.
  Tax relief will not increase the number of people who take out private health insurance.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: I cannot give way at the moment; I have already given way once and there is not much time.
  What other consequences would flow from the Opposition policy? Many people—indeed the majority—who need hip and knee replacements do not pay tax because they are pensioners. The Government have taken the majority of pensioners out of the tax system. What advantage is there to giving tax relief to people who do not pay tax? None, so that will not help pensioners very much.
  If tax is removed from private health insurance, premiums go up. Lord Lawson says:
  If we simply boost demand, for example by tax concessions to the private sector, without improving supply, the result would not be so much growth in private health care, but higher prices.
  Those are not my words, but Lord Lawson's. Therefore, giving tax relief on private health insurance would not increase the number of people taking out insurance, but it would push up prices. I do not see the value of providing a huge public subsidy to the private sector if it does not even increase the number of people using private health insurance. There is no point in that.
  Let us suppose that the policy worked and we managed to increase the number of people using the private sector. That would result in a scarcity of private facilities and resources. Where would the doctors, nurses and other staff in the private sector come from if not from the health service? The annual representatives meeting of the British Medical Association pointed out how overworked and overstretched doctors are. I know, having been closely involved in medicine, that doctors and nurses are overworked and overstretched. However, if those same doctors and nurses also work in the private sector, they will be even more overstretched and overtired. I do not understand how that will improve patient care. The only alternative is for doctors, nurses and others to leave the health service and work only in the private sector. Again, that would be to the detriment of the NHS and patient care.
  So far, I have heard nothing in the Opposition's proposals that could conceivably improve patient care, improve the uptake of private insurance or improve the supply of medical care. The proposals would not work at all.
  Pooled risk presents another problem. Private insurance companies do not want to take on high-risk patients. The principle behind the NHS is that it pools risk. Those with
  1130
  low risk effectively subsidise those with high risk and we have accepted that for 50 years. If insurance companies were to pool risk, people would rightly become upset by that. We would all be upset if we pooled risk on car insurance. If I paid the same premium as an 18-year-old driving a sports car, I would be fairly upset. I consider myself to be a lower-risk driver, so I do not want to cover the risk of someone who drives extremely badly and who is a very high risk. I do not believe that people would be prepared to pay enormously enhanced premiums for private health care to subsidise those at risk.
  I can provide chapter and verse on what happens to medical care in the private sector. A friend of mine who is a consultant diabetologist had a patient who took out private health insurance in good faith. The patient developed diabetes and—fair enough—the private sector paid for his treatment. He then developed the common complication of eye problems; he needed laser surgery on his eyes. The private sector paid for his laser treatment, but he needed more laser treatment and—fair enough—the private sector paid for that. He returned a third time and the company paid again. However, when he returned the fourth time for treatment, the insurance company wrote to him to say, "We are sorry. Four episodes of treatment mean that you have a chronic condition by definition. Chronic conditions are not covered under your policy. We ain't paying no more." That is precisely what happened.
  That patient took out private health insurance in good faith, but found that the treatment was ruled out of order because he had the bad luck and the temerity to develop a chronic condition. I do not see how such insurance benefits anyone.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. I apologise to the hon. Lady.
  There is a way forward. There are enormous opportunities in the health service for the prioritisation and improvement of patient care. I have been working hard with my local health authority, local trust and local primary care group on how we can improve patient care. I want to give one or two examples of what can be achieved in the NHS by prioritising care to improve patient outcomes.
  Many people do not need to be in hospital. They do not want to be in hospital; they would rather be at home. Among that group are people with chronic illnesses, and the Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley health care partnerships primary care group has provided an extra multiple sclerosis nurse as well as an extra epilepsy nurse. It is also currently considering providing an extra Parkinson's disease nurse.
  Those nurses are able to care for people in their homes and it has been demonstrated that they reduce costs, improve patient compliance and reduce the risk of admissions. They give much better patient satisfaction. The nurses are excellent news for the sufferers of long-term illnesses in West Kent and reduce pressure on the acute sector. Nurses can make a real difference to the quality of care and they play an important role in keeping people out of hospitals where they do not wish to be.
  I am also working with a group in my constituency that is trying to encourage telemedicine, which is medicine at a distance, and allows my local hospice to link up with a

  1131
  hospital 300 miles away and receive, three times a week, expert guidance from a consultant many hundreds of miles away who is able to manage the patients and give advice and help to nurses who run the wards day by day. The Lions hospice has managed to get that video-conferencing system running and has made excellent improvements in patient care.
  That sort of initiative should be applauded, as it is the way forward. It demonstrates prioritisation in the NHS, which involves setting priorities, using money to the best advantage and making sure that the available money goes to the best possible patient benefit. The Kent cancer network, managed by the Mid Kent healthcare trust, is driving forward modernisation of the NHS to make cancer services fairer, faster and more convenient. It is at the forefront of creating an NHS better attuned to the needs of patients by reshaping services for people with suspected or diagnosed cancer. The Kent cancer network is the first such collaboration of health authorities and hospitals in the south-east, and will speed up cancer treatment and keep patients fully informed at all stages about what happens next.
  The modernising cancer care projects streamline care of patients with suspected and diagnosed breast, lung, bowel, ovarian and prostate cancer, and provide patients with any suspected cancer who need to be seen urgently with an appointment with a specialist within two weeks, thus reducing waiting times for those with real illnesses. The Kent cancer care network enables patients to pre-book appointments, offering them a choice of dates and times, which takes away the uncertainty of not knowing when and by whom they will be seen. It also co-ordinates surgery with follow-up therapy so that patients know in advance what will happen after surgery. That will minimise delays, reduce patient anxiety and improve care.
  Kent was chosen from 26 applicants to be one of nine networks running 43 projects covering 14 million people, which will modernise cancer projects from top to bottom as part of the Government's pledge to change the way in which the NHS organises care, and radically to change people's relationship with the NHS. About 250,000 cases of cancer are diagnosed in the UK every year, and there are 156,000 deaths from the illness. The Government have pledged to cut the death rate from cancer in people under 75 by at least a fifth by 2010. We should be carrying out that sort of initiative, which is about priorities in the NHS that really make a difference. Opposition Members go on about dissatisfied doctors and nurses and rundown services, but that does not equate with the health service that I am helping to shape and with which I work. I genuinely see improvements in patient care and reductions in waiting lists.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The reason for that is self-evident. The hon. Gentleman represents a Labour area, and there is a distortion in the allocation of funding.
  Dr. Stoate: I would love to believe that that was true and, of course, I look forward to the time when I am re-elected to represent the area that I serve. However, the truth is that West Kent has largely been a Tory-controlled area for many years. Kent county council is Tory controlled and all the constituencies in my area were controlled by the Tories until the election. Since then,
  1132
  however, there has been a real improvement in service under the Labour Government. That is a fact, and patients are benefiting accordingly.
  I wish the same improvements to be seen across the country, and look forward to a time when the Government can continue to improve the NHS year on year, making a health service different from the one that we had previously. I am not accusing Opposition Members of privatisation, but of lack of vision, foresight and initiative. I was hoping that today they would give a coherent, rational strategy for their view of the health service. However, they said that they wanted more and that that should come from the private sector. I believe that that is a redundant policy that will not achieve the results that they desire. It will certainly not be very popular in my constituency or throughout the country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I tell hon. Members that, in the short time that is left, if they take the full extent of the allocation to which they are entitled, there will barely be scope for two more speeches before the winding-up speeches? I therefore hope that we try to have short speeches in order to get as many Members in as possible.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I have heard what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Many Labour Members—in particular, the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—have spoken of the evils of a two-tier system, but I suggest that a two-tier system now operates in the health service. The problem to which I shall refer has not been mentioned this afternoon, but it has got worse since the election of the Labour Government and the introduction of primary care groups. In fact, we are really talking about a three-tier system, because there is no such NHS cover in some parts of the country. I refer to complementary and alternative medicine, which includes homeopathy, herbal medicines, osteopathy, chiropractic medicine and healing.
  I shall declare an interest: for the past 14 years, I have been an officer of the all-party group on alternative and complementary medicine, during which time I have seen a sea change in attitudes to complementary therapy. Many therapies, such as osteopathy and chiropractic medicine, have come in from the cold and become mainstream. In fact, £1.6 billion is spent annually on complementary medicine; 75 per cent. of the public want complementary medicine on the NHS, and 20 per cent. of people use complementary and alternative medicine now. Excluding those who channel energy—the healers—there are nearly 50,000 complementary and alternative practitioners in Britain.
  One of those practitioners works in the House of Commons gym, offering Members acupressure treatments, using the thumb. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may be interested to hear the endorsement of "a satisfied MP", who wrote last year:
  It's the only thing I've found that really unwinds me.

  1133
  So there we are. That treatment is available in the House of Commons, but not in the nation as whole. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) nodding; I do not think that he has ever nodded in favour of any of my speeches in the past.
  Mr. Barron: What the hon. Gentleman says about his previous speeches is quite right. Did he see the BMA report on acupuncture? Perhaps we could hold a debate in the House on why that is not available on the NHS. I have paid for acupuncture privately for several years, and it is an excellent way of making people better.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I have seen that report, and the hon. Member is absolutely right. The problem is that complementary medicine is not available on the NHS, despite the fact that 75 per cent. of people want it to be.
  The situation has deteriorated since the Government came to power. The previous Conservative Government introduced GP fundholding, and many doctors worked in small units of two or three and understood complementary therapies. They could start to offer complementary therapies as part of their NHS budget. That initiative was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). Primary care groups have a larger management structure and many of the doctors have no interest in complementary medicine.
  Representatives of Glastonbury health centre in the west country recently held a presentation in the House to explain how they use different therapies, such as herbal medicine, homeopathy, massage therapy and osteopathy, in an integrated service. They explained how that reduces health service costs. I hope that officials in the Treasury health team are listening. The problem is that, under the primary care group regime, their funding is being reduced and they are seriously thinking of having to shut down. I know from the letters that I receive that that is a serious problem right across the country, and the Minister must address it.
  There is a welcome development: the Government initiative, together with the Foundation for Integrated Medicine, the NHS Alliance and the National Association of Primary Care, to produce a complementary medicine information pack for primary care groups. That has gone quite a way towards developing knowledge in those groups. However, the Minister has not resolved a fundamental problem: there are no guidelines. We need guidelines, and the Department must set some. People expect that of this Government. I encourage colleagues to sign my early-day motion, which has attracted the support of 50 hon. Members. They support the publication of that booklet, but it is important to have guidelines.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that complementary and alternative medicine has been effective in prisons. Recently, I have visited Coldingley and Hollesley Bay, both of which use meditation and Reiki techniques and other types of healing to reduce the problems with disturbed prisoners and young offenders. The Prison Service is offering a useful measure of what is possible, and many of the therapies of which it has made use should be extended into the health service.
  Finally, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a problem that arose last week: the decision of the Charity Commissioners to remove the charity status of the National Federation of Spiritual Healers and to deny the
  1134
  UK Reiki Federation's request for that status. Both decisions are fundamentally wrong. The NFSH has always had charity status and many people involved in the healing professions give their time for free. It is also wrong that the Charity Commissioners have no clear guidelines about alternative medicines, what they are and how they should be categorised.
  I understand that the Government are responsible only for the funding of the Charity Commissioners, but I urge the Minister to write a letter—perhaps marked "Private and Confidential"—setting out the Government's objectives and pointing out to the commissioners that the therapies that they are "derating" were listed in the Government's own advice to primary care groups, published only last week. We must secure a common approach throughout the country. We need joined-up government: the Prison Service, the Department of Health and the Charity Commissioners should all be working to the same guidelines.
  Complementary and alternative medicine has grown exponentially and it is here to stay. Let us have greater support for it. I look to the smiling Minister of State to do something about it.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have listened to your entreaties, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be as brief as possible.
  The debate is welcome, because it gives us a chance to debate the fundamentals of the NHS. The speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) makes it clear that the Conservatives now prefer the American model of bargain basement public provision, with everybody else paying for their treatment. In the long run, that would inevitably lead to a decline in the national health service and, therefore, a diminution in the opportunities for good quality health care for those who cannot afford to buy privately. It is essential that we continue to adhere to the principle of a national health service that is universally available and free at the point of use.
  Not mentioned much during the debate are inequalities in illness and ill health. The outgoing 1974–79 Labour Government commissioned Sir Douglas Black to produce a report on inequalities in health care treatment and in health and life expectancy. It was suppressed by the incoming Conservative Government and later emerged as a Penguin book, which sold extremely well. It is to the credit of the current Government that they have taken an interest in and adopted many initiatives designed to tackle the problems of ill health in our poorer communities.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I represent an inner-city constituency. Our constituencies, compared with the rest of the country, have the dubious distinction of having higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy, and a much greater incidence of mental illness and of notifiable diseases. In addition, to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), we have the highest incidence of suicide in the country. There are many reasons for those tragedies, including a combination of poor housing, unemployment, stress, living in complicated inner-city communities and social exclusion. I have always been fascinated by the reports of the medical officer of health for my district, because they reveal a direct link between ill health and poverty.

  1135
  I was pleased when, in the second round of announcements of health action zones, the Government declared Camden and Islington to be a health action zone. That programme is under way, focusing on
  Early life … Social inclusion … Addiction.
  Objectives include:
  Improving and integrating services, to increase their effectiveness efficiency and responsiveness;
  and
  Developing the infrastructure to underpin the HAZ.
  I welcome all those objectives and applaud and admire the work being done by those working within the HAZ, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think further down the line. The HAZ does not currently have much money to spend; is there any proposal to increase the funding available to HAZs, or is there a proposal in the long term to integrate the undoubted enthusiasm of many local agencies in support of HAZs into the health service itself?
  We obviously welcome any improvement in the health service, but it is important that that links in with the enthusiasm of ordinary people who are participating in trying to reduce smoking and improve fitness, travel-to-work areas, safety and school safety especially. There are many issues that need to be considered.
  I hope that the health action zones will continue for some time. I hope also that in the examination of community health and future structures and configurations, the Minister will think extremely carefully about the size of the areas proposed, and especially the size of those proposed for mental health trusts.
  I and my colleagues with constituencies in Camden and Islington represent an area with serious and acute problems, very different from the problems faced in suburban London, outer London or the rural hinterland surrounding London. If we have good working relationships developing between community groups, the local authority, the health authority, hospitals and many voluntary organisations, it is essential that we do not break them apart.
  I hope that the Minister will thoroughly consider these issues before approving any reorganisation that could end up being detrimental to the interests of people in the poorest parts of inner London. It could lead in some instances to a flow of resources out of inner London. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands my argument because he must be well aware of the issues that have arisen.
  The Government's amendment rightly refers to the need to continue the hospital building programme and expand it. That is something that we all welcome. Anyone who represents an area that has inadequate hospital provision will be well aware of the problems. The incoming Labour Government inherited a backlog of maintenance alone of more than £2.5 billion. A great deal has to be done in terms of capital programmes within the NHS.
  The use of private finance initiatives in the funding of the future expansion of the health service has a number of effects, and not all of them are particularly good. I hope that the Minister will take that remark in the spirit in which it is intended. A trilogy of articles has been put
  1136
  forward by the health policy and health services research unit of the school of public policy at University college, London. It includes a contribution by Professor Allyson Pollock and others. It outlines the way in which hospitals funded through a PFI have been planned on the basis of financial and not clinical needs. In many areas, PFI hospitals will need to generate income from private patients. As a result, some hospitals have increased the proportion of private beds to pay the costs of PFI.
  I ask the Minister to take seriously the concerns that many people have expressed about PFI and the long-term costs. I have an inadequate hospital in my constituency, as do many other Members. It needs rebuilding, expanding and new units, and all that goes with that. However, PFI can be regarded as a form of candyfloss. A shiny new building is provided quickly with PFI, but the long-term costs are extremely great.
  The experience of PFI in many parts of the country has been that long-term costs for the local hospital and for the NHS itself have been considerable. For example, the fees charged on construction costs are much higher under PFI than they would be if the hospital were funded and built directly by public finance through the Department of Health, as I believe it should be. Also, when PFI hospitals are constructed, they tend to be somewhat smaller than existing hospitals. Research has borne out the fact that there tends to be a reduction in the number of beds in total because of the use of PFI.
  The British Medical Journal states that the programme of hospital expansion
  is associated with reductions in acute bed provision of about 30% and cuts in operating and staff numbers of up to 25%. In the 11 first-wave schemes financed through the initiative over 2,500 beds will be lost over the next five years.
  I welcome more money for the NHS and recognition of the needs of the poorest people in inner-urban areas. I look forward to a continuing increase in levels of expenditure and welcome any examination of the causes of poverty. I represent an area in which about half the population live in council or housing association property. Many households are grossly overcrowded and children miss school as they pick up illnesses from their brothers and sisters because they have to share a bedroom. We need to improve the health, housing and education of inner-city communities, and to cut air pollution.
  I am glad that we have a sense of joined-up thinking, but it worries me that the use of the PFI in the Government's expansion programme will cost more in the long run. It is cheaper for central Government to borrow money for hospital building than to use the PFI—which gives rise to a democratic deficit as some control is lost over the building, running and management of hospitals. Many of us are deeply concerned and will continue pursuing that argument.
  6.11 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I apologise profusely to the House for not being present for the opening speeches. I was attending a key governors meeting for the London Institute. The noble Lord Puttnam and I were equally late back for our parliamentary engagements. I shall read the Minister's comments with care.
  As a former Secretary of State for Health, I find it extraordinarily exasperating to hear so many of the programmes that were lovingly delivered traduced in a

  1137
  parliamentary debate—but that is inevitable. I know that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), giving GPs deprivation payments and extra payments for child immunisation and cancer screening, among many other measures, were part of a real effort to improve primary care in inner cities. It is difficult to tolerate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—with whom I agree on many points concerning the General Medical Council—when he says that no new hospitals were built under the last Administration, although the Prime Minister was at Chelsea and Westminster hospital for the birth of his son, and that hospital was built during the time of the last Conservative Government.
  The Economist Intelligence Unit's magnificent documents about health care, the King's Fund history of the NHS and Chris Ham's account of the past 10 years of change in the NHS show that the previous Government introduced many ways of making health care more efficient, effective and patient focused. The last Administration's patients charter, "The Health of the Nation" and mental health strategy—with almost the same targets as now—were first vilified but were then rebranded and incorporated into the present's Government's strategy.
  The 1948 NHS model had a great many advantages and held its own on health outcomes; changes during the years of Conservative government brought a boost of efficiency gains—but that model is not good enough today. The UK is falling in all the international league tables. It is crazy for Labour, with its huge majority, to cling to reactionary policies that disappoint many people in the NHS. The worse the situation gets, the louder the Government's rhetoric.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends are seeking to help the Government to be more constructive, responsible and realistic. In every debate on the NHS, Labour Members claim that the service has never before been so wonderful. My colleagues are telling the Government, who listen to no one, that the situation is not good enough.
  I speak with great emotion about my constituency, because I have one in nine people now waiting more than a year for treatment. The number trebled after the election. In the Prime Minister's constituency, the figure is only one in 50. I understand why he might think that everything is all right, Jack, but it is not all right in my part of the world. One in nine people are waiting more than a year, even after all the Government's efforts to increase the waiting list to be on the waiting list, and the rise in the out-patient waiting list.
  Week after week I deal with cases that are unacceptable. Many hon. Members despise the private sector, but I defy them not to ask people, as I have never previously done, whether they have private cover. I cannot tell them that I can do anything for them, because the situation is so bad. There is a crisis in the acute hospitals. What is the health authority doing?
  I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), is winding up. I ask him to help me again, as he did before. Two years ago, in a debate, I told him that after months—indeed, years—of discussion and decision about Farnham hospital, a plan had been agreed for 42 beds for a day hospital and for stroke rehabilitation. That had been agreed by both trusts—it is a complex area on the fringe of two health authorities.
  1138
  The plan was presented to local people as a good way through. I had worked hard to lower expectations to the minimum. Since then, according to Government rhetoric, there are too few beds, there should be intermediate beds, there is masses more money, and people have never been so lucky in their lives.
  The health authority has now come up with proposals under which there would be no beds in Farnham and no beds in Haslemere, which is the town in Surrey with the highest elderly population. The health authority proposal comes at a time when there have never been more examples of inadequate care. In three cases at least—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), with whom I often discuss such matters—if the people involved had been treated in the private sector, I would have advised the family to sue, because in all three cases, the people lost their lives.
  Under the new proposals, £900,000 is to be taken out of the mental health budget in the Waverley area, and—surprise, surprise—£100,000 is to come out of the community nursing budget. The reason behind all that is that it is a costly area. There are 300 nurse vacancies because nurses do not get London weighting.
  The changes introduced by the Government have meant more top-slicing. There are ministerial back-pockets for health action zones, accident and emergency departments and all sorts of other modernisation projects, but such projects do not come to areas like mine because the basic population is healthy. It may be healthy, but it is enormously needy and demand is high. It is wrong for a poor person in my area to have a worse service than a poor person in the constituency of the hon. Member for Islington, North.
  Why should one in nine people in my area wait more than a year, when only one in 50 has to wait more than a year in the Prime Minister's constituency? In his area, for every man, woman and child, £115 more is spent on health care every year. I support programmes for additional health visitors and midwives, and prevention programmes, but the gap has become too great. Not only have the Government top-sliced more, but they have squeezed the formula to make it even harder for people in wealthy areas, and they have raided the social services budget and taken away the specific grant.
  The cost of care is massive in an area such as Surrey. There are few volunteers because there is high employment. Public transport is poor because there is such high car ownership.
  Mr. Denham: Does the right hon. Lady at least accept that this year her health authority has had an increase in funding of more than £30 million—a real increase of 5.7 per cent.—plus additional special funding? Will she tell me how long ago it was, under her Government, that her health authority received a real increase of 5.7 per cent?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The Government have penalised Surrey when allocating resources. Durham has done much better. The position is deteriorating. It would help if the Government said that they were providing an increasingly unacceptable health service, and asked people—as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—suggested, to use private health care if they could. If the Government were frank, open and responsible, they would do that.

  1139
  It is distressing for my constituents, my doctors, my nurses and my managers that the problem is worse than it has ever been. There has been a threefold increase in one-year waiters. That category affords one of the greatest tests for the health service. I have often been challenged by Labour Members about that. When I became a Health Minister, there were 200,000 one-year waiters; when I left the Department of Health, there were 4,000. I wish that none had been left. Waiting more than a year for treatment is the ultimate sign of an unacceptable service. I ask the Minister to step in and tell the people of West Surrey that the problem is out of hand. One in nine people wait more than a year for treatment in my area, whereas one in 50 wait more than a year for treatment in the Prime Minister's constituency. That is not equity.
  I have made the local points, and I wish briefly to make a few general points about the motion and the Government's stewardship of the health service. An important development, which has been commended by almost every independent commentator, was the attempt by Ministers in the previous Government to distance the political process from the management of the service. The establishment of NHS headquarters in Leeds was a means of saying that, while the NHS could not be a separate agency, the chief executive should have the stature, dignity and independence to exercise authority in his own right, and not be at Ministers' beck and call.
  It is widely understood that not only is NHS management too much under the political control of Ministers but, worse than that, No. 10 has undertaken a role that is out of all proportion to the role it has played in living memory. To anyone who saw the Prime Minister's performance on "Newsnight", the idea that the Prime Minister should chair a health committee is nonsense. I do not blame him for not being an expert on health care, but doctors, nurses and managers know that it is not a subject with which the Prime Minister is remotely comfortable.
  Politicising the process, producing extra money and saying that it must be used in a programme about "partnership", "professions", "performance", "prevention", "patient access" and "patient empowerment" is trivial and insulting to serious people in the health service.
  We now face a serious problem. It is proposed that the roles of the permanent secretary at the Department and the chief executive of the health service should be combined. I hope that the Select Committee on Public Administration will examine the matter and that Sir Richard Wilson will reconsider it. The role of the permanent secretary is to maintain the independence of the civil service, ensure propriety, and handle all Whitehall activities and overseas elements such as European Union and Council of Ministers affairs. A permanent secretary at the Department of Health therefore has a huge agenda.
  I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will be taking over as Ministers in future and I speak from that point of view. The permanent secretary maintains the independence and integrity of the civil service. That role is unlike that of the chief executive, who needs to be a hands-on person and a team builder. The chief executive must fulfil targets, set objectives, travel around the country, be seen in the hospitals and talk to the health authorities.
  1140
  I am pleased that the Secretary of State is here. I want to give a small example that means a lot to somebody who has held his office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) telephoned the Secretary of State's office to ask whether Members of Parliament would be part of the consultation on "whither the NHS?"—with a costly £500,000, according to the King's Fund, going into an exercise in which the envelopes arrive too late to be returned by the due date. The person in the right hon. Gentleman's office knew nothing about the consultation exercise. My hon. Friend replied, "It has been in all the papers. Perhaps you could investigate it." He was then told that the special adviser was responsible for that.
  Anyone who has been in government appreciates why Conservative Members are so sensitive about the degree to which the Government are not sufficiently respectful of the distinction between the political process and the independent process which has been safeguarded by having a permanent secretary.
  As the Secretary of State is now in his place, let me stress that an equitable service does not have one in nine people waiting for more than a year in Surrey and only one in 50 people waiting for more than a year in Durham. Will he please reduce the rhetoric, improve the reality and engage in debate which achieves solutions that can be delivered? Will he please consider NHS managers, whom the Prime Minister would cross the road to insult for two years before the election and for one year afterwards? We now understand that the Prime Minister has read an article by the British Association of Medical Managers and now thinks that managers might be a good idea.
  Combining the roles of the chief executive and the permanent secretary will make it very hard for anyone in the health service to believe that the independence, stature and dignity that Sir Alan Langlands has had will be reflected in his successor. This is my last opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Alan Langlands, who has been a remarkably distinguished, able, talented and honourable chief executive of the most important and complex, and the largest, organisation in this country.
  6.26 pm
  Liz Blackman: I shall be as brief as possible. I am not philosophically opposed to private health care. We live in a free and democratic society and people have a right to make that choice. However, I am opposed to the Opposition making private health care central to their desire to expand health provision through what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) described as less expensive, non-serious, low-tech operations which he defined as hip replacements, knee replacements, cataract operations and hernia operations. I am also against his proposal to use taxpayers' money to provide tax breaks to encourage that. Their policy is economically illiterate and grossly unfair.
  Between 1990, when the Conservative Government introduced a relief for the over-60s, and 1997, when the Labour Government abolished it, the number of people with private health care insurance fell. It was a deadweight relief aimed at altering behaviour and it did not work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) pointed out, even Lady Thatcher and Lord Lawson have now reached that conclusion. In her

  1141
  post-Government reflective period, Lady Thatcher has realised that that logic is flawed. To introduce a relief funded by taxpayers for people who have already chosen private health care insurance is wasteful and will not alter behaviour, as has proved to be the case. It would cost £350 million to provide relief on existing employer health insurance before one extra person gained relief, and the total cost could be as much as £1 billion.
  The Opposition have promised to maintain the investment that the Government have put into NHS services, but they have not said where the extra money would come from. They need to come clean on that. Pensioners are clearly the target audience for the Opposition's proposal as they represent a significant proportion of the population who are least able to afford health insurance premiums, as many of them are on fixed disposable incomes. They have paid taxes all their lives and they have paid for a national health service, and it is they who will need hip replacements, knee replacements, cataract operations and hernia operations. Such operations are essential and they deal with conditions that cause sufferers misery and distress.
  The thrust of Tory policy would force them to do one of three things: to pay up, to take out insurance or to wait longer. It is worth reminding the House that a hip operation costs between £5,000 and £7,000, a knee operation costs a similar amount, a hernia operation costs between £1,000 and £1,500 and a cataract operation costs between £1,800 and £2,400. We should also remember that premiums for a pensioner couple are between £3,500 and £4,500. In the past 10 years, those premiums have risen on average by 10 per cent., and they are rising on average by 3.5 per cent. a year. Some insurance companies' premiums are rising by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent.
  It is also important to read the small print on insurance policies, because they have many exemptions. People are caught out because they believe that they are entitled to a level of health care that they are disappointed not to receive.
  Finally, I wish to draw the House's attention to an evolving scam called dual pricing, which operates in health care insurance. A hospital will quote one price for someone who does not have medical insurance and another—up to 50 per cent. more—for someone who does. Some insurance companies suggest that their customers get round the disparity by initially paying for their own operations. Julian Stainton, the chief executive of the Western Provident Association, has said:
  We'll reimburse them within 24 hours and also split the difference with them of the higher insurance price we'd expect to be charged. But it's ridiculous that this system occurs. There's no doubt in my mind that many charges rendered for private medicine are excessive.
  That quotation comes from Good Housekeeping. If private hospitals can afford to do the same operation at half the price, they are ripping off the health care insurers and, more importantly, the patients themselves through the premiums they pay. If tax relief were to be given, it would simply bump up the premiums. I urge the Government to look carefully at that practice, because further regulation would appear to be required.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: We have had many contributions from Back Benchers and I shall pick up some of the key points. I hope that hon.
  1142
  Members will forgive me if I do not mention every contribution, but I need some time to respond to the Secretary of State's misinformation campaign in his speech.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) seemed to be parroting the Government line, and claimed that the Conservatives see the NHS as a residual service only. He ignored totally the explicit commitment we made on funding—to match the comprehensive spending review figures that the Government have produced. I can state categorically to the hon. Gentleman that the NHS will be at the heart of the system that we intend to put in place.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) usefully drew the House's attention to the Government's attack on doctors. When the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was Secretary of State, managers were responsible for all the problems in the health service. Now it is the doctors who are responsible. Perhaps the next Secretary of State will tell us that it is the patients who are responsible for all the problems in the health service. My right hon. Friend is passionately committed to the NHS and to the need for choice as well as access in the health service. He drew attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) devoted the lion's share of his speech in Glasgow, which has been mentioned in the debate, to how we would improve the NHS. It is the Secretary of State who focused this debate on private health insurance.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has the great benefit of consistency in his views and I know that his beliefs are genuinely held. He would like to ban independent health insurance and all forms of independent health care. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would reaffirm, when he winds up, that it is not the Government's plan to ban private health insurance or private treatment in the NHS. After all, as Lord Winston helpfully pointed out yesterday, it makes a significant contribution to the NHS. I agree with the hon. Member for Wakefield on one point: if there is any expansion of health care, whether public or private, it must be accompanied by an expansion of the real resources—the people who deliver the care, as well as the money. The two must go hand in hand if we are to achieve the effect that we desire.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) gave us some telling and chilling statistics on where Britain stands in the world league of health outcomes. He said that no Government of either party would be ready to impose the tax burden necessary if, using taxation alone, we were to catch up with the amount spent on health in Germany. That example raises a pertinent question: should we therefore accept second best for the British people, or should we look for ways to supplement our national health service spending, while continuing to raise that tax-financed spending as economic conditions allow?
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke passionately about his commitment to the NHS, and in doing so he spoke for the Conservative party. He nailed the lie that the Conservative party wants to privatise or abolish the NHS. He referred to the Labour allegation that we would charge for visits to general practitioners—a possibility that we have explicitly ruled out.

  1143
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford also made the important point that the lie that we would privatise the NHS is not new. The Labour party has said that for years. They said it before the general election in 1987, but the Conservative Government then elected went on to spend more than ever before on the NHS. They said it again before the 1992 election, and the Conservative Government that followed that spent even more than their predecessor.
  The Labour party's cheap slur cuts no ice with anyone. If the Secretary of State thinks otherwise, he should look at the comments in the press.
  The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said that whistleblowers in the national health service were guaranteed a fair hearing and protection. I think that she lives on a different planet from the one that we inhabit. There is a climate of fear and a palpable atmosphere of oppression in the NHS. Earlier this week, an official of the NHS Confederation told me:
  I've got to confess to you. In 1996, we really thought that things couldn't get any worse, but we found out we were wrong.
  The hon. Member for South Swindon also mentioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Its decision about beta interferon has exposed it for what we always said that it would be—a mechanism for levelling down, not levelling up.
  In addition, the hon. Lady missed the point about Conservative policy. We are quite prepared to support an institute that looks at clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness, but affordability must be an issue for politicians, based on the overall resourcing of the service.
  The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) gave the lie to the Secretary of State's position. He knows my colleagues and me better than the Secretary of State does. He knows that the privatisation lie is just that—a lie. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) reinforced the point that the NHS depends on a consensus, which itself depends on the fact that the great majority of people in all parts of the country have confidence in the service.
  However, the tone of the debate was set by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and the response from the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend set out a catalogue of the distortions that the Government have imposed on the NHS. He talked about the waiting list initiative, and spoke of spin and information management. He mentioned the threat to tertiary referral centres of excellence through the abolition of extra-contractual referrals. He described the systematic denial of choice, the bullying and the culture of fear that pervades the service, in which clinical needs are subordinated to political ones. He also recorded this country's dismal relative position in international league tables.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring continued on a more positive note, however. He told the House about the speech that he made yesterday, in which he set out a vision for health care delivery in the 21st century. He mapped out his objective of a patient-focused system appropriate to a modern consumer society. That system would draw inspiration not only from the traditional NHS values of comprehensive service and universality of access, but from the examples of our European neighbours.
  1144
  The system outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring would be a mixed economy of health care, with the national health service at its heart, offering choice as well as access. We will have a national health service that is stripped of ideological baggage, puts the patient first and is determined to get the best health-care value for every pound that the taxpayer entrusts to it. Purchasing in the independent sector for the benefit of NHS patients, where that is the best-value decision, is a rubicon that the Secretary of State himself—at least in word, if not yet in deed—has crossed. We are delighted to endorse that step in the right direction.
  We will have an NHS that acknowledges the finite nature of the resources available to it and the limits on its ability to deliver every want, instead of sticking its head in the sand. We will have an NHS that recognises that, in international comparisons, we do poorly; a service that prioritises according to clinical needs, not political ones. We will put the sickest first. Those with the most serious life-threatening conditions will be put at the top of the list and we will recognise that their needs must have the first call on the NHS's resources. That is common sense.
  We are offering a guarantee—the patients guarantee—that, for the most important conditions—those which, in Bevan's words
  cast a shadow of fear over millions of homes
  the NHS will respond with the necessary treatment, using the best techniques and drugs available in a time frame that is clinically appropriate for the patient. That will allow the people of this country to be confident that, in cases of real need, they can be sure that the NHS will be there for them and their families.
  The Secretary of State would have the world believe that priority for the most serious conditions means non-availability for others. That is just plain wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have both made it clear that we have a commitment to a comprehensive national health service, free at the point of use. We have a commitment also to matching the Government's announced spending plans. There will be the same pot of money, the same total purchasing power for the national health service.
  The question we are addressing is how we prioritise that spending. The Secretary of State's answer has been: according to his political agenda. He has played the numbers game, treating the hernias before the heart diseases because they are cheaper, easier and boost the throughput. Our answer is to allow doctors and NHS managers to prioritise according to clinical need and without political interference; without the dead hand of Richmond house on every decision and without the Secretary of State looking over their shoulders. That means treating the sickest first—those whose lives, livelihoods or life styles are threatened by disease—and asking those with minor conditions to wait, just as we do now. Indeed, we do that for some not-so-minor conditions.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring's most important point is the strategic one; the role of the Secretary of State. What happens now is truly incredible. From Richmond house, the Secretary of State seeks to run centrally the largest organisation in Europe, with a command-and-control structure that would not have looked out of place in the old Soviet Union. His NHS is

  1145
  subject to no independent or external inspection or checks to ensure quality and compliance with minimum standards. Instead, we have to rely on the organisation to police itself, and we all know what the result of that has been. We would redefine the role of the Secretary of State.
  What was the Secretary of State's response? It was rather churlish, given our acknowledgment of the strides that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in our direction, in recognising at last the need for a partnership with private sector providers to deliver NHS objectives. He has come a long way since 1998 when, as Minister of State, he reportedly threatened NHS trust chairmen that he would
  come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who co-operated with the private sector.
  The Secretary of State does not want to draw attention to that recent development in his policy because not all of his hon. Friends are entirely on side with it. Instead, he decided to make the cheap points, working on the principle of "the bigger the lie". He repeated the tedious and offensive lie that the Tory party wants to privatise the NHS. Who in the Tory party? Not me; not my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring; not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; not any of the Conservative Members who have spoken in the Chamber tonight.
  The Secretary of State used his old familiar quotes, out of context as usual. However, if he looks at the press, he will see that, by and large, his campaign is not succeeding. The press and the people of this country want to talk about the real issues and about the future of the NHS. They recognise the reality of the mixed economy in which we live and operate, and they want to see a positive view of the future of the national health service.
  The greatest threat facing the national health service today is the threat to the consensus that supports it. Many hard-working, relatively affluent taxpayers up and down the country are no longer confident that the national health service can provide for them and their families. The Labour party is forcing them into taking up private insurance or being self-payers—they are afraid that the NHS will not be able to help them quickly and effectively because of the distortions of priorities within it.
  I will give an example from my constituency. A patient goes to the local hospital; he is told that he may have cancer and that he needs a diagnostic procedure. They cannot tell him when that will be—it could be at least two months, because the bit of kit that they need to do it is broken. So he spends his savings—£700—to find out that he does not have cancer.
  Such situations are being repeated up and down the country, day after day. They damage the consensus that underlies the national health service. Our vision is of a national health service in which everyone can feel confident of prompt, first-class treatment for the most serious conditions. That is a cohesive principle, not a divisive one.
  What we have heard from the Secretary of State today is a smokescreen of misrepresentations, designed to distract attention from the changes that he is making—some of which do not enjoy support from his hon. Friends—and the embarrassing fact that the majority of the British people believe that the national health service has got worse, not better, since 1 May 1997. The Secretary of State will know that, because his private polling will tell him.
  1146
  The Government are obviously not prepared to fight this battle on the basis of a defence of their own record. Instead, the Secretary of State wants to fabricate a policy that he attributes to us and then shoots down. So let me spell it out unambiguously: we are committed to a comprehensive national health service, free at the point of need. We are committed to matching the comprehensive spending review funding plans for the NHS which the Government have announced. We are committed to a system that has the national health service at its heart, but that commitment alone is not enough. We need to prioritise the way in which the NHS works on the basis of clinical priorities. We will guarantee access times, through our patients' guarantee, on the basis of clinical need. In that way, we will restore the confidence of the great majority of the British people in the way our health service works, after the cynical manipulations of this Government.
  Mrs. Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had notice that the Secretary of State wishes to correct an error that he made earlier this afternoon, undoubtedly inadvertently, as I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House deliberately.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady is doing the House a service. She will know that this is a matter for debate and not a matter of order for the Chair.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I apologise, in view of the time, that I, too, will not be able to refer to all the speeches made in the debate, including the many excellent speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), I have no clinical training. Although I am quite sure that she is clinically able to diagnose a state of amnesia among Conservative Members, my observation that they are in a state of denial must be purely a layman's point of view.
  Let us take, for example, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). If I had been a junior Health Minister in 1985 and I came here in the year 2000 and said that we do not have enough doctors in the United Kingdom, I might have made some connection between that and the decisions that I took in 1985. For the record, I say here and now that, should I still be a Member of this House in the year 2015, and should I wander into the Chamber and make a speech saying that there are not enough doctors in England, I hope that someone will feel free to point out that I, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our ministerial colleagues, were taking the decisions about how many doctors to train.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The Minister may recall that in my speech I predicted that what I said would be wilfully and grossly misrepresented. He has proved the accuracy of that prediction.
  Mr. Denham: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that he referred to the number of doctors in this country.

  1147
  The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke about the wonders of the reforms of the previous Government although, to be fair, he accepted that there had been some mistakes. However, the idea that the system of extra-contractual referrals allowed all patients to see whichever doctor they wanted is simply not true. For 15,000 GPs, if they wanted to refer to anyone outside their area they had to go through a set of bureaucrats in the health authority—bureaucrats imposed on those patients by the Conservative party. By getting rid of extra-contractual referrals we have restored to GPs the freedom to refer. Doctors collectively decide where their patients are treated and the health authority no longer has the veto power. That is a significant and important change.
  Although I cannot develop the argument about neurological services today, those issues are important. However, a closer look will show that they are fundamentally to do not with the system of extra-contractual referrals, but with uncertainty about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of some of those treatments. It is an important issue and a number of hon. Members raised it. We need to resolve it as quickly as possible and I am determined that we should do so.
  Finally, in a debate about responsibility, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), knows as well as I do that while there has been a record of increases in funding for her health authority, her area has a major problem—the debts of £18 million that were run up under the stewardship of the previous Government. That problem has to be resolved, but there comes a point when those who were in government a few years ago have to take responsibility for the things that happened then.
  I do not think that anyone here would describe Dr. Ian Bogle, the president of the British Medical Association, as a poodle of the Government. He has criticised Ministers and the Prime Minister. This week, however, when opening the BMA conference across the road from here he said:
  Following the Budget announcement in March, the Prime Minister offered to include us in the policy-making process …
  He continued by saying that there had been a
  fundamental shift in government thinking that has given us the opportunity to help shape policy and have a say in how the significant extra investment in the NHS pledged in the Budget will be spent.
  Tony Blair has challenged us to deliver change in return for extra investment. We are more than willing to meet that challenge.
  Mr. Blair, your plan is eagerly awaited by every doctor in this conference hall and every doctor on the NHS frontline.
  The picture that hon. Members have tried to portray of an entirely alienated national health service—an alienated profession—is simply not true. People are working astonishingly hard and giving an enormous amount to the NHS, I recognise that, and they are stressed and tired through doing so. However, it is not merely the BMA that is involved in drawing up the national plan; it is the royal colleges, the trades unions, the professional organisations of other staff, NHS management, patients organisations and thousands of NHS staff at local, regional and national level, as well as patients and users of the NHS.
  Whether or not those people support the Government as voters, they all believe that this Government are right on two key issues. The NHS needs more money, and they
  1148
  know and believe that this Government are doing what the Conservative party never did, never wanted to do, never dreamed of or believed was right, which is to deliver more money to the NHS at unprecedented levels. Those people also agree with us that money alone is not enough. We have to change the way the NHS operates, the way we organise our services around the needs of patients, the way we train and use our staff, and the way we manage the NHS.
  A huge national debate is taking place on the future of the NHS and all that debate is shaping the national plan, which we are drawing up. What gets up the nose of the Conservative party is that it has chosen to be outside that debate—because of its past record, its opportunistic attacks and its obsession with private medical insurance, and because Conservatives are more interested in drumming up business for Abbey National than in facing up to the challenges of delivering a better national health service.
  Not everyone who is taking part in that debate supports the Government. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who made an excellent speech, is not a supporter of the Government, but he made it clear that he wants to be part of the national debate and his views should be listened to. We have listened to patients, we are listening to staff. Many Opposition Members have attacked us for waste in doing so. They say that listening to patients' views is not a good idea. If they want to talk about waste, let us talk about waste. One of our first actions when we came to power was to abolish the internal market—the bureaucratic, inefficient, unfair, internal market. By doing so, we will save £1 billion; £1,000 million will be saved over the lifetime of the full Parliament and spent on patients because we abolished the ideological, wrong-headed waste created by the previous Government. So let us not have any debates about waste and inefficiency in the NHS.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is a pleasant gentleman. I understand that by repute he has an excellent bedside manner. He is, of course, a doctor. But when I look at him he strikes me not so much as a 21st century doctor as a 19th century quack, touring country fairs on the back of a wagon and looking for gullible people.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: No, I will not give way to somebody who has just wandered in off the street.
  I say that the Opposition spokesman is like a 19th century quack, because whatever symptoms and problems the NHS patient faces, the prescription is always the same: a strong dose of Doctor Fox's patent private medical insurance. [Laughter.] A bad knee? Better buy some insurance. Bad hips? Better buy some insurance. Trouble with the eyes? Better buy some more insurance.
  This evening the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) tried to put all this behind the Tories and say that what he had said on Sky television or what the hon. Member for Woodspring had said in The Sunday Times was all in the past. I have sat here, as have several of my colleagues, and listened to speech after speech from Opposition Members, every one of whom has said that the only answer to the problem is more private

  1149
  medical insurance. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that that is not their strategy. Clearly, back in January he convinced all his colleagues that it was, and they are continuing to say that it is. I believe them rather more than I give credence to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
  One of the flaws in what we have heard this evening is the Tories' claim that they will match our spending plans. The final judgment about whether they are telling us the truth should rest with the voters, who are a good deal less stupid than the Opposition hope. Before the Budget, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record increases in NHS spending, not once had there been a single indication that any Tory Member thought that an increase in spending at the level that we are proposing was either possible or desirable.
  In the middle of the winter flu epidemic, did we hear calls for more money? In our debate in early January, did hon. Gentlemen call for money for the NHS? No, they called for more private medical insurance. What did we hear on the eve of the Budget from the shadow Chancellor on "The Money Programme"? Did he say, "If I were the Chancellor, I would put a bucketload of money in the NHS"? Did he say, "The NHS needs more money. That must be the Chancellor's top priority"? Did he say, "Give them the money, Gordon"? No, he said:
  He—the Chancellor—can either reduce taxes or he can increase public spending. What I would recommend is that he use the money to reduce taxes.
  Not once, not ever, did the Tory party call for the sort of increases in spending which we will deliver.
  The Tories have made a claim born, as always, of opportunism and expediency. Voters will know that that type of promise has less value than commitments that are made from conviction and determination. It is worse than that, because the promise has a gaping hole in it: this afternoon, £500 million for private medical insurance, and a year-on-year tax guarantee that means cuts in health expenditure to pay for tax breaks for the rich—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 278.

  Division No. 243]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Clappison, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  1150

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Faber, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Pace, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Green, Damian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hammond, Philip

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hayes, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Johnson Smith Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor John M (Solihull)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Viggers, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Walter, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Luff, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ashton, Joe

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Austin, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Caton, Martin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Chaytor, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chidgey, David

  Best, Harold

  Clapham, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Breed, Colin

  Clelland, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Clwyd, Ann

  1151

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hurst, Alan

  Colman, Tony

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darvill, Keith

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kidney, David

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Linton, Martin

  Efford, Clive

  Livsey, Richard

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fisher, Mark

  McCabe, Steve

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonnell, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McFall, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWalter, Tony

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McWilliam, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gidley, Sandra

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Grogan, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Moffatt, Laura

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harvey, Nick

  Moore, Michael

  Healey, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

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

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hesford, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hood, Jimmy

  Norris, Dan

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  1152

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter L

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Plaskitt, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pond, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Todd, Mark

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Rammell, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rogers, Allan

  Tynan, Bill

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rooney, Terry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Roy, Frank

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruane, Chris

  Watts, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  White, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wood, Mike

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. Graham Allen and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 97.

  Division No. 244]

  [7.11pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Breed, Colin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burden, Richard

  Austin, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Caton, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cawsey, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Chidgey, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clapham, Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  1153

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Hutton, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Illsley, Eric

  Colman, Tony

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Darvill, Keith

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davidson, Ian

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Denham, John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lammy, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Doran, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Linton, Martin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livsey, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lock, David

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fisher, Mark

  McDonnell, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McFall, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McIsaac, Shona

  Follett, Barbara

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McWalter, Tony

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gidley, Sandra

  Maxton, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Merron, Gillian

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Goggins, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hain, Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

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

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Healey, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Norris, Dan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Heppell, John

  Olner, Bill

  Hesford, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hope, Phil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pike, Peter L

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  1154

  Pond, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Pound, Stephen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Todd, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Touhig, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Roy, Frank

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Tynan, Bill

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Watts, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  White, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woolas, Phil

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mr. Graham Allen and

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Amess, David

  Gray, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Green, Damian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bercow, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hayes, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clappison, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Collins, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cran, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Flight, Howard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fox, Dr Liam

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gibb, Nick

  Moss, Malcolm

  1155

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Page, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Prior, David

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wells, Bowen

  Ruffley, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. John Randall and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the decision to prepare a National Plan for the NHS in England, bringing together doctors, nurses, patients' organisations and others working in the NHS to set out priorities for the modernisation of the NHS; welcomes the largest sustained increase in funding in the history of the NHS; and rejects the use of taxpayers' money to subsidise private medical insurance.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Sanctions
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1999-2000 HC67, and Government response HC473]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I am delighted to be able to open this debate on sanctions. The Select Committee on International Development decided to investigate sanctions because of the humanitarian effect on the people of the countries affected. The compelling evidence that was given to us by many international organisations concerned with children and women, and with the humanitarian affairs of the targeted countries, showed that the policy was having a severe effect on the poorest people in the countries concerned, and very little effect in terms of achieving the aims of the Foreign Office and the international community. The major example is the compulsory economic sanctions that were imposed on Iraq, which have now been in place for 10 years. Inevitably, therefore, our report concentrates on Iraq.
The International Development Committee is particularly concerned by the statements made to us by organisations such as UNICEF and the Save the Children Fund. In 1999, UNICEF published the extraordinary estimate that an additional 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died between 1991 and 1998. During those eight years, in an average three-hour period—the length of today's debate—there would be 21 additional deaths of under-fives in a country whose population is one third of the size of the United Kingdom's. UNICEF's most recent child malnutrition survey, in south and central Iraq, found little, if any, change since 1997.
That is the result of the imposition by the international community of sanctions on Iraq. When they were imposed, the sanctions were designed to change the behaviour—or, indeed, the leadership—of the Government of Iraq. They were supposed to ensure that Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, was denied the means by which he could continue to manufacture, and threaten his immediate vicinity with, weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent him from carrying out aggressive wars and incursions into neighbouring countries such as Kuwait.
What have been the effects of those sanctions on Saddam Hussein's behaviour 10 years later? He is still in power, more certainly than he was when the sanctions were imposed. He and his family are considerably richer than they were 10 years ago. The imposition of sanctions has enabled him to impose a rationing system for food, medical supplies, health and education on all the people of Iraq, who have thus become totally dependent on him.
258WH
That shows the ineffectiveness of sanctions on Iraq. The Foreign Office's reply to the Committee's report is complacent and, in many ways, flabby. Before there are cries of pain from the Foreign Office, I point out that one would have thought that, in making a reply to a Select Committee, it would have made every effort to ensure that its facts were correct. It states that the United Kingdom has imposed universal sanctions only once since the second world war, but that is not the case. It has applied them three times, in Argentina and elsewhere. That illustrates a disregard for accuracy and a determination not to listen to the Select Committee's arguments for trying to do something more effective, and with fewer bad humanitarian effects for the countries being targeted.
Sanctions have never been effective anywhere. They are a diplomatic tool used to reply to a population's cry for the Foreign Office to do something. Doing something, for the Foreign Office, involves taking the easy option of saying that it will apply sanctions. The Foreign Office's—and the international community's—readiness to impose sanctions in answer to the demand to do something has increased since the end of the cold war. It is now involved in more than 25 sanctions regimes, most of which have been applied since then, and I fear that the number is growing.
Other regional examples of sanctions exist, in which we find severe humanitarian suffering—for example, in Burundi.
Ann Clwyd: I am sorry to have to disagree with the Chairman of our Committee, but paragraph 39 of the Committee's conclusions clearly states:
Not all this humanitarian distress is the direct result of the sanctions regime. There is a tendency to blame all such distress on sanctions in the absence of clear evidence…The responsibility for the plight of the Iraqi people must ultimately lie with the Iraqi leadership.
It is only fair to point out that that formed part of our report's conclusions.
Mr. Wells: I entirely accept that. I was coming to that point later in my speech. Of course Saddam Hussein is responsible for all the distress in his country. His people are suffering as a result of serious maladministration, fraud, and the corrupt nature of his regime. However, without the sanctions, he would not have been helped to stay in power and to apply the rationing system to which I have referred. We cannot deny that, in Iraq and elsewhere, the perpetrators of serious international crimes are responsible for the humanitarian effects of those crimes on their countries, but we do not have to help them.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: There is a great deal of common ground between my hon. Friend and myself. We all went through the lengthy business of compiling the report. However, I am not entirely sure that we have been helping Saddam Hussein as he appears to suggest. I do not disagree with him fundamentally, but I do not believe that the people of Iraq would have been in a much better position without sanctions.
Mr. Wells: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that Saddam Hussein would have

259WH
remained quite so securely in power if he had not been assisted in doing so by international sanctions. Those sanctions legitimise his domestic position as far as the Iraqi people are concerned, because they are seen as an external threat not only to his regime but to the whole population. That gives him greater authority. The countries imposing the sanctions are not responsible for causing the suffering of the people of Iraq, however. Saddam Hussein is.
The sanctions against Burundi are among the examples of regional sanctions that have not worked and have produced severe humanitarian disasters. The sanctions imposed by three African countries on Burundi prevented the provision of medical assistance for well over a year. The result was severe outbreaks of disease for which no medical help was available. The civilian population also faced serious shortages of food and other vital supplies.
The other obvious failure was in Angola, where sanctions still apply. The evidence given to the Committee suggested that Dr. Savimbi is receiving the contents of at least seven flights a day, despite the international community's sanctions. Some of the aircraft are, in fact, so large that he is taking delivery of tanks. Such is the ineffectiveness of the sanctions against Angola that Savimbi is able to carry on a civil war. Angola provides some of the worst examples of human deprivation and, although it is potentially a rich country, it has become one of the poorest in the world. The effectiveness of the sanctions must be questioned, but the impact on innocent civilians and their children is substantial.
My next example relates to a real farce. I refer to the political ineptitude shown by the European Union—acting with the support of the United Kingdom—in the fuel for democracy regime that was imposed on Serbia at the end of last year. In that case, although the European Union had imposed sanctions on fuel supplies to Serbia, we chose to break our own sanctions. The world was conscious that, during the severe winter in Serbia and Kosovo, there could be a serious number of deaths from hypothermia among the weaker members of the population—especially young children and elderly people—as a result of the bombing of the region and the elimination of the power supply, so the European Union, supported by the United Kingdom, decided to supply fuel to those mayors of Serbian towns close to the border with Kosovo who would declare themselves for democracy and against Milosevic. That was done in the name of humanitarian assistance.
The bandying around of the term "humanitarian" in that context was deplorable. Since the Geneva convention, the understanding has been that any assistance provided under the humanitarian banner should be universal—it should go to all sides in a war. Those delivering such aid must be seen to be neutral, so that they will not come under attack from any side. Fuel for democracy violated all humanitarian considerations. It was supplied only to those mayors who were opposed to Milosevic. That is a serious undermining of the whole credibility of sanctions and humanitarian assistance and it should cease forthwith. In any case, that programme did not result in the overthrow of Milosevic, as had been hoped. The people
260WH
of Serbia were saved from death in the cold by the Chinese, who supplied fuel, and the Swiss Government, who repaired many of their power stations. In terms of humanitarian efforts and focus, the Foreign Office and the European Union are unlikely to be effective in that example.
The question arises whether we should be using sanctions at all—whether we should give them up as a means of trying to exert pressure on countries that offend against international law. The Committee concluded that that would not be sensible. The evidence suggested that we should make sanctions sharper and more focused, and perhaps concentrate them on financial assets.
In recent years there has been a flurry of activity to examine how financial sanctions might be implemented. A major initiative has been the Swiss-sponsored Interlaken process, which has been examining proposals to improve the effectiveness of financial sanctions. The United Kingdom has been supportive of the Interlaken process, but the Committee thought that there was a gap between rhetoric and practice. For example, at the time of its inquiry, the Treasury informed the Committee that in the case of Angola only two accounts had been frozen and that the amounts frozen were not significant. Similarly, while the Government in their response stated that they take financial sanctions seriously, they also stated that
it is the responsibility of financial institutions to ensure that targeted accounts are frozen, and up to them to decide which systems they wish to use to achieve this end.
The Government's rejection of interdiction software, which is widely used in the United States and elsewhere, contrasts with the speech of the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations Security Council during a debate on sanctions on 17 April when he stated:
I hope that modern technology will be able to help us in the financial area.
The Government also rejected the Committee's recommendation that an office for foreign assets control be established.
How many accounts have been frozen under the financial sanctions regimes against Iraq, UNITA in Angola, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Is the situation satisfactory, or should the Government and the Bank of England be examining further options for freezing the funds of targeted individuals? Are the Government satisfied that the recommendations of the Interlaken process were taken into account when the most recent financial sanctions regime was implemented, against the Taliban in Afghanistan? The Foreign Office rejected the Committee's approach and I believe that it was seriously mistaken to do so. If we are to apply financial sanctions, the co-operation of not only the Foreign Office, but the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bank of England, Customs and Excise, the UK mission in New York and so on will be needed.
It is incorrect to say that the United Kingdom has never imposed unilateral financial sanctions. We did so on 2 April 1982 against Argentina and on 2 August 1990 against Kuwait, which was then part of Iraq. On both occasions, the Emergency Powers Act 1920 was used and the fact that the Kuwait measures were protective is irrelevant. The Committee's basic point is unassailable.

261WH
There will be coherent administration of sanctions only if responsibility rests with a single body that is responsive to the financial centre being policed.
The Bank of England used to do the job very well, but since the internationalisation of the banking system and the proposed transfer to Brussels of the Bank of England's powers to discipline the banking sector, its powers and capacity have been seriously undermined. Therefore, we need to replace those powers with a co-operative effort on an international and European Union basis which includes the United States and Japan at least. The Foreign Office should reconsider its rejection of that demand. I ask it to do so urgently. The whole Government must reconsider their position if they are serious about finding a means of targeting sanctions on the leaders of countries without creating unnecessary suffering for their unempowered people. It is illogical to apply sanctions that impact on people who have no power, in particular, no power to change the regime. They have no power because they have no money, because the very leaders whom we are trying to influence have taken it away. Sanctions should instead be targeted on the people whom we need to get at.
The Committee examined the present system of humanitarian exemptions and concluded that they should be based on a thorough assessment of the likely impact of the sanctions on the targeted population, and of other issues
such as the level of economic development in the country targeted and groups that are likely to be disproportionately affected by the imposition of sanctions.
The Committee further recommended that
sanctions regimes should be sufficiently flexible so as to allow for fine-tuning in response to any…adverse humanitarian consequences.
For example, in northern Iraq the universal food ration, which was introduced as part of the oil for food programme, resulted in the dramatic collapse of markets in key agricultural products such as wheat, flour, rice, oil, chick peas and lentils, impoverishing the farmers in that region. That mistake has been made time and again in international efforts to help people, particularly by the World Food Programme. We should have learnt from such mistakes by now, but in this case we apparently have not. It is vital that the humanitarian response to sanctions takes account of local procurement and the local economy.
Finally, the Committee looked at the capacity of the United Nations. The Government agreed with the Committee that there is a need for a dedicated and properly resourced capacity—not only in Britain but in the United Nations secretariat—to provide advice and support to the Security Council, sanctions committees, member states and regional organisations on all aspects of sanctions, including the targeting, implementation and enforcement of financial sanctions. The Government's response makes frequent reference to a Canadian proposal to establish a working group on sanctions in the United Nations Security Council. Has that group been established? Who will be involved and what will be its remit? How will it be funded and supported, both financially and logistically?
This is a very serious issue, and the Committee has made a major contribution to persuading the international community and the Foreign Office to do a
262WH
lot better than they are doing at the moment. Among those who gave important evidence to the Committee was Mr. Jeremy Carver, who is a representative of one of the most important and best informed legal practices in this country. He believes that the Committee is right to press the Foreign Office to be more constructive and recognise the needs of those in the targeted nations who, because they are unable to respond to sanctions, are suffering seriously.
This debate is long overdue, and I hope that it will help to ensure a more sustainable, rigorous and disciplined policy that we can applaud and support in future.
2.53 pm
Ann Clwyd: I also want to quote from Mr. Jeremy Carver, who, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) suggested, is a partner and head of international law at Clifford Chance. Mr. Carver took part in the Interlaken process, so he is well versed in these arguments. He told the Committee:
It is not the imposition or maintenance of international sanctions, but the policies of the Iraqi government which are the primary cause of this suffering. The Iraqi regime has cynically exploited sanctions: both to justify its neglect of its own population and as a tool to solicit external support for its reconstructed ambitions. A government which delights in showing foreign parliamentarians suffering infants, when its warehouses are overflowing with food and medicine undistributed for years, surely reveals itself, save to the gullible.
Representatives of the Iraqi opposition groups who gave evidence to us agreed. They questioned the extent to which the humanitarian impact of sanctions was the responsibility of the countries imposing the sanctions or of the Iraqi Government. They said that the sanctions had had an effect. None of us would argue that they had not—of course they have. The British Government have agreed that the humanitarian situation in Iraq has deteriorated since sanctions were imposed in 1990, but obviously there are differing opinions about the causes.
The opposition groups said:
After 60 or 90 days at the most the regime had the opportunity to remove sanctions if the international community's will had been accepted by Iraq—
and if it had been implemented. However, they said:
Iraq has dragged its feet by denying the Iraqi population a better life in economic, political and even social terms…it has challenged the international community and the UN resolutions.
I could give hon. Members a list longer than both arms that would show the ways in which the Iraqi Government have refused to honour those resolutions and continued to go their own way.
The Iraqi opposition groups of course acknowledge that the sanctions are hurting the people, but they say:
they are absolutely necessary to keep pressure on the regime.
The solution, it is argued, lies in maintaining sanctions, albeit with improved exemption mechanisms. We should bring education, transport and the environment into the equation. That is the solution, not the total removal of sanctions.

263WH
That was the opposition groups' argument, and it must be said that those people have family in Iraq, both north and south, and they know what they are talking about. The trouble is that it is difficult for us to establish for ourselves where the truth lies, apart from by listening to reports from other people.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Lady and I share much common ground on the matter. I would like to raise one issue before she moves on from considering the Iraqi opposition. They made a point that is worth repeating. They were asked by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) whether the people of Iraq wanted sanctions to be lifted. In response, Dr. Latif Rashid from the Iraqi National Congress said:
I think that it would be a nightmare for the Iraqi people if the pressure on the regime was reduced.
That speaks volumes, does it not?
Ann Clwyd: That is an important point. The report is bulky and we took a long time to prepare it. The evidence in it is an accumulation of opinions, which is worth reading, if I may plug it. The then head of the middle east department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Edward Chaplin, said:
there are other, rather startling anomalies in the way that, for example, Iraq exports food to Syria in significant quantities, while claiming that its people do not have enough to eat.
Further, Mr. Chaplin said that the regime had
reduced the amount of the calorific value of the food basket but put in large sums of money for the import of bank-note counting machines and telecommunications equipment, tens of millions of dollars for those items, but less than before going on the food basket. And then there is the problem of distribution, even the stuff that does get into the country.
Iraqi Kurdistan and northern Iraq are the subject of both UN sanctions and Saddam Hussein's sanctions. The UN and other humanitarian agencies have assumed responsibility for the provision of food and medicine there. Other witnesses noted the stark contrast between those areas and central and southern Iraq, where Saddam Hussein remains in control. The people in northern Iraq will certainly substantiate that.
I want to concentrate today on the human rights abuses of the Iraqi regime, because they are a factor that it is important to consider within the subject of sanctions. Like many of my hon. Friends, I went round the holocaust exhibition in the Imperial War museum. I spent two hours there the other week looking at the evidence of the terrible effects of the holocaust on peoples of various countries and the debris that was left of people's personal effects: the buttons off their coats, scraps of material, tin mugs, half combs, and many things that were dug out of mass graves. When one looks at the film of events that took place at the time, one sees the sheer terror on people's faces—on the faces of small children and old men and women.
As I walked around, I thought that in a few years' time we would see the same thing in Iraq, because of the extent of the persecution by that regime of the Kurds in the north, the Shi'ites in the south and the Iranians, with the use of chemical weapons on the people of Halabja and the written instructions given by many leading members of the regime.
264WH
The Iraqi regime is very like the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, who kept explicit instructions about what should be done with people. For example, in the case of a group of Kurdish shepherds who were rounded up, a telegram was sent back to Baghdad to ask what should be done with them. The command was, "Dispose of them." They were shot. Afterwards, letters were sent out to their relatives asking them to come and collect the bodies. When they collected the bodies, they had to sign for them and pay for the bullets that had been used to kill their relatives. That is documented in meticulous detail by the regime, and that will be very useful in the future when the perpetrators appear before a war crimes tribunal.
I want to highlight the Government's response to part of the Committee's report. The report said:
Any move away from comprehensive sanctions should go hand in hand with measures designed to target the real culprits, not the poor of Iraq but their leadership. Possibilities include a concerted attempt to target and either freeze or sequester the assets of Saddam Hussein and those connected to him, and the indictment of Saddam Hussein and his close associated as war criminals. To bring to justice Saddam Hussein is also a humanitarian imperative and this should be done without delay.
The Government agreed with that view. They referred to the fact that the UN special rapporteur for Iraq concluded in his most recent report that he had observed no improvement in the human rights situation there since his appointment as human rights rapporteur in 1992. In fact, he said that the situation was getting worse. The prevailing regime of systematic human rights violations is contrary to Iraq's many international obligations and remains a threat to peace and security in the region.
The Government share the view that Saddam Hussein and other members of his regime should be brought to account for the atrocities that they have committed over the years. The Government support Indict and other organisations that seek to bring them to justice. I should explain my own interest as chair of Indict, from which I receive no personal finances. That organisation is committed to bringing some of the main perpetrators of continuing human rights abuses before an international criminal tribunal.
One of the problems with the proposed International Criminal Court is that it will not be able to act retrospectively and, given the slow pace at which countries are ratifying it, it will be many years before it is set up. That is why I suggest that the action of organisations such as Indict to bring Saddam Hussein before an international war crimes tribunal could be an alternative to the easing of sanctions—that is, if the regime agrees to resolution 1284, which the United Kingdom spent so much time pushing through the UN, only to be told by Tariq Aziz that Iraq had no intention of agreeing to it. The resolution is all about the easing of sanctions. If the regime or its supporters favour the easing of sanctions, they should back it. They should also back the creation of an ad hoc tribunal at the UN to indict Saddam Hussein and some of his closest cronies.
It seems extremely ironic to me that those abuses are so well documented—better documented than many war crimes perpetrated in the century that has just passed—yet no international tribunal has been set up at the UN. I know that the Government have been busy in relation to resolution 1284 and will continue to press for

265WH
it to be accepted, but they should concentrate at the same time on trying to secure the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal. In a recent letter to Ambassador Holbrooke at the UN, Human Rights Watch pressed the Security Council to establish an international criminal tribunal like those that have already been set up for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
Human Rights Watch noted that such a step was entirely warranted on the basis of the evidence that it had uncovered and would help to dispel any suggestion that addressing Iraq's humanitarian crisis implies leniency towards the Iraqi regime. An article in The Economist on 8 April said:
Sanctions remain the world's only leverage over a ruthless and bellicose tyrant. Yet almost ten years into the embargo they have not budged him.
That point was also made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford.
Perhaps America and Britain need to rethink a policy that has so embittered and impoverished the people of Iraq. I can never understand why the UN annual report on human rights in Iraq does not receive more publicity when it documents some of the most awful human rights abuses ever. In his latest report to the UN, Max van der Stoel, human rights rapporteur on Iraq since 1992, said:
the gravity of human rights abuses in Iraq has few comparisons in the world since the end of the second world war.
He regrets that since saying that in 1992 he has had no cause to change his view, and concludes that the regime has effectively eliminated the civil rights to life, liberty and physical integrity; eliminated freedoms of thought, expression, association and assembly; flouted rights to political participation; banned all political parties except the Ba'ath party; and failed to use all available resources to ensure the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights by the Iraqi people. He says that the political and legal order in Iraq is not compatible with respect for human rights and entails systematic violations throughout the country, affecting almost the entire population.
I shall list some of the abuses that have taken place in the past year. The special rapporteur has a list of 21 people from Basra who in late March 1999 were arrested, executed by firing squad and buried in a mass grave near the town of Zubair. Their so-called crime was demonstrating. In addition, the houses of their families were demolished and their relatives detained. That was under the direct supervision of Ali Hassan Al-Majid, commonly known outside Iraq as "Chemical Ali", the man who ordered the destruction of Halabja by chemical and biological weapons.
Other lists contained the names of 56 prisoners who were executed en masse in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad in April 1999 and of 26 prisoners executed en masse on 10 August 1999. Their so-called crime was inflicting damage on the state. Since 1997 2,500 prisoners have been executed without trial as part of Iraq's prison cleansing campaign.
The special rapporteur has lists of hundreds arrested and detained without trial. For example, 70 people in Kerbal were arrested and taken to detention centres in Baghdad and prisons in Al-Amara. Those arrests were ordered by Saddam's son Qusay to intimidate the population of the southern marshes by taking hostages. Eight Shi'ite clerics have been sentenced to death. Two
266WH
Shi'ite religious scholars have been murdered in what the special rapporteur feels may have been an organised attack by the Iraqi Government.
The Iraqis in exile do not make enough of these facts. When I went to northern Iraq I met thousands of people camping out in what had been the headquarters of the Iraqi secret police. They had been deported. They were given 24 hours to get out of their homes and clear off to northern Iraq. That internal deportation, to relocate and Arabise the Kurds, continues. Kurdish property and land have been seized and Arab settlements have been built in Kurdish areas.
Iraq has the highest number of disappearances in the world. The human rights working group has stated that there are more than 16,000 outstanding cases of disappearances, including those of more than 600 Kuwaitis. The special rapporteur has reports of the Iraqi army destroying houses and villages. In late March 1999, armoured division 6 destroyed the residential areas of some of the tribes and bulldozed 56 homes of political opponents in Basra.
Since the beginning of last year, the special rapporteur has received regular reports that the Government of Iraq has been destroying the houses of opponents with bulldozers in broad daylight. Recently, 52 houses were demolished in Basra. There is a list of names of hundreds of people treated in that way. We know their addresses and the action that was taken against their families. We know of arrests, executions and expulsions.
I am reminded of a visit to the then Iraqi ambassador in London in about 1977 or 1978, when I was not a politician but part of a group from Wales. There were many Iraqi and Kurdish students in Wales then. We came with a list of missing women and children. I did not understand then why all the Iraqis decided to stay at the top of the road. After all, they had made the journey from Wales with us. However, they said, "No, no, we are not coming anywhere near there." At the Iraqi embassy we were given tea, smiles and greetings. Then I passed to the ambassador a list of the missing women and children. He did not even look at it. He just pushed it aside, got up and shouted "Out! Out!" Then I understood why the Iraqis and Kurds had stayed at the top of the street. That was the first of many visits to the Iraqi embassy. I cannot say that my treatment was any better on subsequent occasions. In fact, I think it got progressively worse.
Over the years, among the organisations that have given evidence—I have chaired an Iraqi opposition group, too, since 1984—has been the Iraqi Communist party, which was badly treated by the regime. Its members went to see the UN special rapporteur in Geneva with more lists—the lists are always reliable—showing what has happened this year. A group of 58 prisoners who had been held in solitary confinement at the Abu Ghraib prison were executed on 9 March. Among those victims, 14 had been sentenced to death for political offences ranging from being affiliated to opposition parties to participating in opposition activities. The rest were sentenced for criminal offences. The bodies of the latter were handed to the families; the bodies of the political prisoners were removed using vehicles that belonged to special security, which is headed by Saddam's son Qusay. They were buried at night and the relatives do not know where.

267WH
I could go on: 21 political prisoners were executed on 3 February; 43 were executed on 12 February; and 101 were executed later in the year. I understand that 73 citizens are now being held in solitary confinement at the Abu Ghraib prison in cells that are usually used for people who are sentenced to death. They have been there since 1991. Those who went to see the UN special rapporteur proposed activating UN resolution 688, which deals with human rights in Iraq. Like so many other UN resolutions, however, it has not been honoured by the regime. The regime's officials, headed by Saddam Hussein, should face trial before an international tribunal.
One sanction that would make it impossible for Saddam Hussein or other members of the regime to travel is indictment. Other war criminals who have been chased around the globe have eventually been caught. If the members of the regime are indicted, they are less likely to move outside the country. I have had many dealings with Ambassador David Scheffer, whose remit includes war crimes committed throughout the world. He believes that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are still viewed by some Governments as the legitimate leaders of a country that is under siege by the international community. In reality, they are thugs who are terrorising what was once, and could be again, a great nation.
We, the United States and many other countries have said that that group of Iraqi criminals should be stripped of their power and, if possible, brought to justice. They should not benefit from contracts, trade or initiatives that would bestow any legitimacy on their regime in Baghdad. They should be isolated, cut off and brought before the gates of justice.
The organisation that I chair has named 12 members of the regime, including Saddam Hussein, his two sons Qusay and Uday, his cousin Hassan Al-Majid—the infamous "Chemical Ali"—and a small number of associates who share responsibility for the crimes. From time to time, we hear that a member of the regime may be travelling in Europe. Last year, Ezzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, vice-chairman of the revolutionary command council, visited Vienna last summer for medical attention. The United States, other nations and the organisation that I chair approached the Austrian authorities to try to have him detained there. Unfortunately, the Austrian official who tried to get him arrested did not have sufficient material. It is necessary to get witness statements, videos if possible, signed orders and a variety of admissible evidence for an indictment.
In our organisation, we have had to build up such information from scratch. We began with empty box files. Despite all the evidence that is held in the United States and the United Kingdom, we have had to piece it together ourselves. If the rest of the world, and the Government, are serious about indictment, they should give more assistance to those who are trying to bring it about.
I want to mention nine major criminal episodes under Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq. In the 1980s, crimes against humanity and possible genocide occurred in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, including the use of
268WH
poison gas in Halabja in 1988, which killed an estimated 5,000 people in a single attack. Also in the 1980s, crimes against humanity and war crimes were committed involving the use of poison gas against Iran. There were other war crimes against Iran and the Iranian people. In 1990 and 1991, there were crimes against humanity and war crimes against Kuwait, its people and its environment, during the illegal invasion and occupation, and in the same year there were war crimes against coalition forces during the Gulf war. During the 1990s there were possible crimes against humanity and war crimes with respect to illegal human experimentation. Since the 1980s, possible crimes against humanity have related to killings in Iraq, mainly of political opponents. Since 1991, crimes against humanity and possibly genocide have been committed against the Iraqi Kurds in the north and against the people of the southern Iraqi marshes. Possible crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed in killing Iranian prisoners of war.
Among the documents held by the Americans are 5.5 million pages of captured Iraqi documents taken out of northern Iraq by Human Rights Watch and the United States Government. An archive of more than 4 million pages of Iraqi documents was captured, and videos were shot by US cameramen during the Gulf war. Classified Iraqi archives are held. No one can doubt the Iraqi regime's continuing assaults on its own civilians. Anyone who calls for the unilateral lifting of sanctions without underlying agreements is being irresponsible.
I hear that some countries now talk about trade with Iraq and sending trade delegations. I hear of a recent agreement with Turkey. There must not be a memory lapse about the war crimes of Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. That man and his regime have for years brutally and systematically committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. They are committing them now and will continue to do so until the international community finally says no.
The Security Council could, I believe, set up an ad hoc tribunal. I have heard Ambassador Scheffer mention the use of an interim arrangement in the setting up of war crimes tribunals in the past. That was done in the cases of former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, when a commission of experts was set up to investigate the facts. However, he believes that that is unnecessary in this case. The facts are well known, and an ad-hoc tribunal could be set up now.
Last year, when the Select Committee went to the United Nations and we spoke to the Secretary-General, I asked him specifically what the UN would do if some of those war criminals were indicted. He said, "I suppose we would set up an ad hoc tribunal." Indict hopes soon to put that to the test. We have copies of 176 CD-ROMs, which the US has made available to us. Our researchers have been going through that information and collecting the kind of evidence that is needed to bring about an indictment. There is no shortage of information.
It is important to place on the record one of the most brutal crimes of Saddam Hussein's regime—the Anfal campaign against the Kurds. I have been to that part of the world several times, and that campaign never came home to me in all its brutality until I crossed the border from Iran into Iraq at night during Saddam Hussein's attack on the Kurds. They were fleeing across the

269WH
mountains to Iran and elsewhere, wherever they could cross a border, in the most pitiful state. We could hear the bombardment going on. As we drove into northern Iraq, we saw that every few miles there were masses of rubble. I realised that those were some of the 3,000 villages that had just been bulldozed by Saddam Hussein, and had once been people's homes. Those people had been transported to the desert area of Iraq. That was when I recognised the sheer awfulness of the Anfal campaign.
"Chemical Ali", who was in the late 1980s the man responsible for implementing the policy against the Kurds, said in a speech to security commanders in January 1989:
I'll certainly look after the Kurds. I'll do it by burying them with bulldozers. That's how I'll do it.
He was true to his word. The policy was simple and direct.
Orders for the treatment of people who were rounded up were explicit, as in the case of the shepherds whom I mentioned earlier. An order of June 1987, again from Ali Hassan Al-Majid, stated:
The armed forces must kill any human being or animal present within these areas. They are totally prohibited.
That order was repeated often, because apparently some units in the field were not as active in implementing the policy as the high command wished. Another command stated:
The core command shall carry out random bombardments using artillery, helicopters and aircraft at all times in order to kill the largest number of persons present in those prohibited areas. All persons captured in those villages shall be detained, and those between the ages of 15 and 70 must be executed after any useful information has been obtained from them.
Another cold-blooded edict stated:
The 1st Army Corps issued an order as requested by comrade Ali Hassan Al-Majid to execute the wounded civilians after the party organisation confirmed their hostility towards the authorities.
The best known incident was the attack on Halabja, where 5,000 civilians died from the effects of mustard and nerve gases. I went to see some of them in hospital in London about a month later. They had the most horrifying burns, and some could not speak. The devastating effects of Halabja are felt to this day, including abnormal rates of birth defects, cancers and infertility.
The Foreign Secretary and the Minister have spelt out their intentions many times, and I agree with them. I have always supported the view that they have taken. After all, what alternative do we have when there is no agreement that weapons production—which I am certain is still going on in that country—can be inspected? Do we just cross our fingers as Saddam Hussein smuggles in a new stock of weapons, and wish the Kurds, the Shias and the Iranians—and anyone else whom he plans to attack—the best of luck? The answer to that must be no.
If we are responsible human beings, as I hope, we must realise that Saddam Hussein's is an awful regime. Unless it is brought to book—for example, through resolution 1284 or through the indictment of Iraqi war criminals—it will continue to persecute its own people and make their lives a misery, and continue to be a threat to neighbouring countries and, perhaps,
270WH
countries further afield. We must say to him that there is no hiding place in the world for war criminals any more, as the spokesperson for the Attorney General said at Question Time this afternoon. We must say that it is the responsibility of every country, under international law, to prosecute Iraqi war criminals wherever they might be. That must be the message to any future dictators and perpetrators of atrocities such as the holocaust and the many other terrible things that have happened to us over the past century.
3.32 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I want to take the emphasis away from Iraq and to look at sanctions more generally. I shall look particularly at the question of what are called smart sanctions, or financial sanctions.
There are many imperfections in the kind of sanctions that have generally been imposed, and the advantages of smart sanctions are listed in paragraph 65 of our report. It points out that smarter sanctions ought, among other things, to hurt the regime more than the general population; that they avoid the humanitarian costs of comprehensive trade embargoes; and that they make it more difficult for the target regime to rally domestic and foreign support against the sanctions. There is an attractiveness about smart sanctions. I went into this investigation thinking that it would be interesting to hear about them. I wondered what they were and how they operated.
I must say that I emerged from working on the report deeply disillusioned about smart sanctions, because I did not find much smartness going on. The report refers to that in strong terms in paragraph 78, which says:
We consider it totally unacceptable that there is no individual or organisation within the United Nations with overall responsibility for targeting financial sanctions, for example against those who continue to enrich themselves while their people suffer.
It is impossible to have smart sanctions when the United Nations does not have a brain. It does not have a brain because no one there is responsible for gathering information. No person or organisation within the United Nations is responsible for the imposition of smart sanctions. We must address that. The Foreign Office's response to the report does not deal adequately with that point.
If hon. Members want to know how dumb the United Nations is in this respect, they should read the evidence of Ambassador Fowler on the resources that he has and the information that he receives as chair of the Angola sanctions committee. He said that he received whatever information any nation deigned to give him, which was not much.
I can illustrate the point about smart sanctions by referring to the issue of diamonds. It is fair to say that, if we were serious about preventing conflict in Africa, we would have done something about diamond mining and smuggling a long time ago. The Angola crisis has been going on for 25 years, and it is calculated that, in the 1990s, Savimbi gathered in $3.7 billion from the diamond trade. The Congo and, for the past 10 years, Sierra Leone have also been affected.
I received some information from De Beers, which controls about 65 per cent. of the world's diamonds. The figure has gone down in recent years because of the

271WH
collapse of the Soviet Union, but we are still talking about a big player. Everyone who considers the situations in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Congo comes to the conclusion that diamonds are fuelling the wars. In a press release, De Beers Canada said that it had long ago
ceased buying diamonds in Angola from the informal sector of the economy.
The document also says:
The intake of diamonds being purchased by De Beers and its associated companies and being sold into the market through the Sight system does not include any diamonds which come from any area in Africa controlled by forces rebelling against the legitimate and internationally recognised government of the relevant country.
De Beers is saying that its hands are clean.
De Beers also wrote to me about something that I said in a previous debate. In evidence to Congress, the corporation said that, for a variety of reasons, it had been
appalled by the link that has been made between diamonds and the funding of weapons purchases by rebel armies in Africa.
In the letter that I received, it said:
Moreover, as part of its (well publicised) programme to deny rebel movements in Africa access to the world's diamond markets, De Beers has closed down all its outside buying operations in Africa and instructed its offices in Antwerp and Tel Aviv not to buy any African-sourced diamonds. That is why it is able to ensure that all the diamonds it sells onto the market are conflict-free.
That is an enormous statement, and it conflicts with what has been said by others who have carried out research into the matter.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it surprising that world diamond prices have remained fairly stable? If there were a quantity of diamonds available outside the official channels, the price of diamonds would have plummeted.
Mr. Worthington: One of the major reasons for the existence of De Beers is to protect world diamond prices. We ought to be able to use it to help to clear up diamond smuggling, as it is easier to control operations with such a huge organisation.
A report by an organisation called Partnership Africa-Canada, entitled "The Heart of the Matter: Sierra Leone, Diamonds and Human Security", says:
De Beers says that it does not purchase Sierra Leonean diamonds. Through its companies and buying offices in West Africa, however, and in its attempts to mop up supplies everywhere in the world, it is virtually inconceivable that the company is not—in one way or another—purchasing diamonds that have been smuggled out of Sierra Leone.
There are important questions to be asked. Although the Government of Sierra Leone recorded exports of only 8,500 carats in 1998, the Diamond High Council in Belgium recorded imports from Sierra Leone of 770,000 carats. In Liberia, where little diamond mining takes place, the annual diamond mining capacity is between 100,000 and 150,000 carats, but Liberian imports to Belgium of more than 31 million carats have been recorded between 1994 and 1998. In other words, although the capacity of the Liberian diamond industry
272WH
was said to be about 100,000 carats, Belgium was allegedly importing 6 million carats a year during that period. That is a highly significant accusation.
The Canadian report states:
De Beers is part of the problem. In its efforts to control as much of the international diamond market as possible, it is no doubt purchasing diamonds from a wide variety of dubious sources, either wittingly or unwittingly.
That is also a considerable accusation. Global Witness, a London-based organisation with which the Foreign Office occasionally deals, has stated:
Governments and the trade must finally accept it is their responsibility to ensure that diamonds are not involved in the funding of conflict, and take action accordingly.
Global Witness is a well-accredited organisation, and I see the Minister nodding in agreement. It continues:
If any of these diamond funded conflicts in Africa are to have a chance of peaceful conclusion and if the threat to the international market is to be negated, then the international community, through the G8, G77, UN, SADC and EU must act swiftly and decisively to prohibit the sale and marketing of these "blood diamonds".
Conflicts have continued in Angola for 25 years, and in Sierra Leone for 10 years. Diamonds are relatively simple to control compared with offshore financial trading activities. They pose problems, in the sense that they are small and very valuable, but they are subject to powerful controls. The diamond market in Belgium, which controls 75 per cent. of the world's diamonds, is secretive, and it is because it has been designed to be so that hon. Members probably know little about it.
The world community cannot cope with this problem. Like everyone else, Ambassador Fowler accepts that diamonds are at the root of it, but as far as I can tell, his team consists of not much more than one other person and a dog—and I am not even sure about the dog. He has no information-gathering mechanisms, no power, and is unable to understand the situation in Angola, whether in respect of diamonds or of anything else. We asked him about the problem of small arms in Angola, and he replied, "Small arms? Huge, 50-tonne tanks are being smuggled in and I can't stop them."
We must get serious about this problem. If sanctions are to be imposed, it is no use giving in to the "something must be done" syndrome. Where sanctions have been imposed, there have been terrible consequences for innocent people in almost every case. We have allowed black markets to be set up, and often strengthened the villains whom we are trying to bring down. The Minister and the Foreign Office know that I am right. The United Nations is not equipped, in terms of information gathering or singleness of purpose, to impose smart or other sanctions. That matter must be addressed soon.
I am not criticising the Minister. I recently received a parliamentary answer saying that representatives from the Foreign Office have met the diamond people in Belgium. That is a welcome step forward. However, we must go much further. We have the most active Africa Minister that I can remember, but he and the Government must get to grips with smart sanctions, especially in relation to diamonds.
3.45 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: I congratulate the International Development Committee on an immensely detailed and thought-

273WH
provoking report on sanctions. I must admit that, on first reading it, I was somewhat startled, because my perception was that the Committee was arguing forcefully—because of the evidence that had been so tellingly presented to it—that sanctions can create even more humanitarian havoc for the people of the countries on which they are imposed.
I clearly remember, after the apartheid regime in South Africa had finally been dispatched, buying my first bottle of South African wine, and shaking all the way from the shelf, through the checkout, to the exit. For my entire life, it had seemed that anything that had anything to do with South Africa was not to be touched—and was certainly not touched by me. I have always believed in the power of sanctions and have participated in them in so far as it is possible for an individual consumer so to do. I was therefore relieved that paragraph 3 of the Government response to the Committee's report stated:
The Government believes that the case for sanctions remains compelling.
The paragraph concludes:
Our sanctions policy will remain under constant review in the light of these and other international consultations and of feedback received from UK civil society.
Having said that, I strongly agree with many aspects of the Committee's report. I could not agree more with the argument in favour of infinitely smarter sanctions that was so forcefully presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—in terms not only of their implementation, but of those on whom they are imposed and of the information that is provided to us, as consumers, about regimes that warrant their imposition.
The Committee concentrated mainly on the sanctions imposed on Iraq, but it also took evidence on Burma, and I should like to raise the strong case for the introduction of investment and financial sanctions against that country. I shall not take up hon. Members' time by detailing the evidence that is already in the Committee's report, as I am sure that everyone in the Chamber is aware of the appalling nature of the illegal and brutal regime that claims to govern the people of Burma. My argument is supported by those who are working for the introduction of sanctions against Burma and by Aung San Suu Kyi, the only democratic leader of Burma and the only person, in my view, who has any right to speak for that country and its people. She argues forcefully for the introduction of such sanctions against her country.
The situation for the people of Burma is appalling, and it is getting worse every year. The comparative tables for countries around Burma reveal that, in terms of infant mortality, mortality of children under the age of five and maternal mortality, Burma is by the far the worst country in that part of the world. As we know, millions of men, women and children are in forced labour there. Indeed, on 17 June 1999 the International Labour Organisation—an agency of the United Nations, as I am sure all hon. Members are aware—passed an unprecedented resolution that virtually expelled Burma from its ranks. The resolution was overwhelmingly adopted at the ILO annual assembly in Geneva. That came as the result of an inquiry by the
274WH
ILO's commission, which accused Burma's ruling military of the widespread and systematic use of forced labour. The commission charges that
any person who violates the prohibition of recourse to forced labour under the (ILO) Convention is guilty of an international crime that is also, if committed in a widespread or systematic manner, a crime against humanity.
I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber would argue with that assessment.
The commission has gathered evidence of threats to the life and security and the extrajudicial punishment of those who are unwilling, slow or unable to comply with the demand for forced labour. Such punishments or reprisals range from money demands to physical abuse, beatings, torture, rape and murder. The commission also has evidence that forced labour in Burma is widely performed by women, children and elderly persons, as well as persons unfit to work.
More than 1.5 million people have been internally displaced in Burma. There are more than 1,500 political prisoners. Thousands upon thousands of refugees have had to flee their country. The standard of living for people in Burma, which is naturally rich, is falling year on year as the economy deteriorates. In the main, that is because its so-called Government are interested only in increasing the size of the army, continually expanding their military and buying more weapons. The country has no enemies outside its borders. It is under no threat from anyone. The only threat that the illegal regime can discern is from the people of Burma itself.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) argued, with regard to Saddam Hussein, that, far from removing the illegal regime, sanctions have assisted in the maintenance of his criminal activities. If one turned that argument on its head, one could say that the non-introduction of sanctions would remove such regimes. That is certainly not the case as far as Burma is concerned. The situation for the people of Burma could not be worse. The majority of the economy is based on rice and the majority of rice farmers must sell their rice to the army and to the Government for far less than it would raise on the open market. Such minimal sums as are spent on what we in this country would regard as a caring social infrastructure must be spent on lauding the regime.
I would argue for the introduction of some form of economic sanctions and for active, energetic proselytising among our indigenous companies and those of our European partners that would regard investment in Burma as profitable. We should argue that any company in the European Union already in Burma should disinvest and not consider future investment there. The United States has already introduced such a system.
To go back to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie made, there are difficulties in achieving agreement, not only on obtaining information, but on unity of action in the international community. I congratulate the Government on the work that they have already undertaken in the UK and the EU on attempting to freeze Burmese assets.
I agree with the Chairman of the Committee about the difficulties of introducing a cohesive programme of economic sanctions. They should not only work, but

275WH
target the leaders of regimes. He said that it would require close co-ordination between every arm of Government, but our Government pride themselves on being joined up, so that should not present a problem. I would argue that the present Government in Burma are criminals; if they were called a mafia, no one would hesitate to consider introducing an international regime to freeze or take away the criminal assets of the perpetrators.
It would not be impossible to introduce such sanctions. They would have a beneficial effect on the people of Burma by shortening the life of that illegal regime. History shows that all such repressive regimes are eventually overturned. We pray that it will happen peacefully, but time is a factor. We, as consumers, are quite prepared not to buy products from companies that we believe are investing in illegal regimes whose practices are regarded as unethical and which we believe will damage not only human beings, but the environment. We have reached a point in the world's history when Governments should be able to harness the energy and commitment of people around the world to play their part as consumers to help to reduce the power of regimes such as that in Burma.
I congratulate the Government on what they and our European partners have done. I urge them to continue to work strongly together. They should tell the UK's financial and business community what they regard as the wrong kind of investment. They should proselytise in the international community, saying that the regime has placed the most appalling burdens on a people who are innately gentle and peace-loving. The regime has destroyed the economy of one of the richest countries in that part of the world, and it continues to stop, harass and imprison its people. It will not allow the only truly democratically elected leader of that country, Aung San Suu Kyi, to play her proper part in taking her people out of the darkness in which they are now enveloped and into the light.
We are talking about a regime that sends small children along jungle paths to ensure that, if land mines have been laid, only the children die and not the soldiers. That is one example of its brutality and its total lack of appreciation of what is essential to achieve civilised relations in the international community.
I thank the Select Committee for its hard work; its report is immensely detailed. I acknowledge that sanctions must be infinitely smarter, but I still hold to the belief that they have a major role to play in ensuring a peaceful change, so that those regimes that are unacceptable to those who believe in democracy, human rights and justice can be removed and overturned.
3.59 pm
Barbara Follett: I welcome the debate. The subject is long overdue for an airing. As other hon. Members and my Select Committee colleagues have covered so much ground so eloquently, I shall confine my remarks to something of which I have personal experience.
Between the early 1960s and the late 1970s I lived under a sanctions regime in South Africa. The Select Committee set itself the task of assessing the impact of
276WH
sanctions on target regimes and examining proposals to reduce their unintended harm. I should like to consider those two aims in the light of my experience in South Africa. Sanctions are as old as democracy itself. The first recorded incident of sanctions led to the Peloponnesian war in 432 BC, when I believe that Athens imposed sanctions on a neighbouring state, which then called in Sparta. The imposition of sanctions often ends in war. We saw that in the case of sanctions by the United States against Japan in 1938, which some people say led to Pearl harbour. Sanctions have also been imposed against Britain. In 1807, President Jefferson imposed an embargo on trade with European countries because of our actions against United States merchant ships.
Sanctions have been applied to many countries, with some success or no success, but on the whole with qualified success. Most people would say that, even if sanctions are not successful in bringing down a regime, they may change some conditions and make things better for some people. The only case of sanctions that people such as economic historians and economists agree was a success was in relation to South Africa. The sanctions introduced there eventually produced the fall of apartheid, but I should like to talk about the effect of those sanctions.
There is no doubt that, as in the case of Iraq, and as the Select Committee report stresses, the sanctions imposed on South Africa, especially initially, had a disproportionate effect on the poor, just as they are having in Iraq. Sanctions on Iraq have been in place for nine years. They were in place in South Africa for many more years than that, and the apartheid regime was in place for 44 years in total. To be effective, sanctions must be multilateral, and nothing illustrates that better than the case of South Africa. In the early '60s, I was a student at university in South Africa. The apartheid regime had been in place since 1948 and was really beginning to bite. We were forbidden to go to university with members of other races, except under special qualifying conditions. The Group Areas Act was in place. Infant mortality among the black races was 50 per cent. Half of African children born in South Africa in the 1960s died before they reached their first birthday. The infant mortality rate among the whites, who then comprised 4 million of the population compared with 26 million blacks, was lower than the World Health Organisation's best—a statistic of about 19 in 1,000.
In the 1960s, South Africa was suffering under the apartheid regime. The Organisation of African Unity imposed the first trade embargo on South Africa. It was not effective because South Africa's economy was not especially involved with other African economies, and the few border states with which it was involved, such as Zambia, Botswana and Swaziland, were too enmeshed in the South African economy to withdraw effectively.
Sanctions continued until about 1977. In 1961, South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth because it faced United Nations Security Council resolutions and embargoes by other Commonwealth countries. In the early 1960s, South Africa either withdrew or was expelled from a variety of regional and international organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO and various others. In 1963, the Security Council introduced limited military sanctions and the situation in South Africa grew worse. By 1976, the first strike by school children took place.

277WH
Black children were told that, instead of being taught in English—still not their mother tongue—they would be taught in Afrikaans, so they revolted.
That situation created a great deal of publicity about apartheid South Africa. There had already been a substantial amount of publicity, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State had played his part. However, the real change came in the late 1970s. Until then, I saw almost no difference in South Africa as a result of sanctions, other than that the South African economy became more self-sufficient. There were petrol restrictions, which meant that the number of deaths on South African roads—astronomically high to this day—was reduced.
Overall, the difference for the whites was not great, but the sanctions had an effect on the blacks, who were the oppressed. That is because sanctions were not targeted. However, from the early 1970s, people in South Africa, including me, were calling for targeted sanctions on South Africa's financial institutions—on gold. Nobody heard and nobody did anything, because people did not have the psychological will to impose targeted sanctions. That is a second strong prerequisite. One can have the physical ability to impose sanctions, but one must also have the psychological will.
People in Britain debated sanctions, and I saw and heard those debates. I remember listening to a debate just after I had visited a township where the homes of about 100 people had been flattened by bulldozers. At the time, I wondered how anyone could say that sanctions were wrong. Sanctions were vital, but they needed to be better sanctions. That is what the report should be about.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, currently sanctions are not smart. I doubt that they ever will be smart, but they are definitely better than entering into armed conflict. We must ensure that they are imposed effectively and to a time scale. Had sanctions been imposed on South Africa's financial institutions by the United States earlier than 1985, we might have seen some change sooner. That was when the US imposed selective sanctions on computers and computer software used in security operations, on nuclear technology and on financial assistance to United States firms that hoped to invest in South Africa. Those sanctions began to hit the oppressor rather than the oppressed because the Pretoria regime was tied in to western credit facilities and western banking.
When the European Union imposed similar sanctions, the measures really began to bite. Actions by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the sporting and cultural front had an effect on the psychological ability of people to impose sanctions, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) found it so difficult to buy South African wine and why so many people boycotted a certain brand of chocolate and milk for many years. To this day, I sometimes feel guilty about eating that particular brand of chocolate, but I remember the difference that those sanctions made. That is why I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister of State to do everything that he can to ensure that the UN's imposition of sanctions on Iraq is strengthened.
278WH
As I have already said, sanctions must be multilateral to be effective, and they must be targeted, as they were in South Africa. We began to target effectively in 1985, but it took until 1992 for the South African economy to reach such a parlous state that apartheid started to be dismantled. How many lives could we have saved, how much suffering could we have stopped, how many generations of people could we have prevented from being tainted in the way that people will be tainted in South Africa by the effects of those 44 years of apartheid, had we had the ability and the psychological will to impose those sanctions, and, most importantly, had we targeted the oppressor and not the oppressed? For far too many people, sanctions are window dressing. People ask politicians, "What are you doing about it?" Politicians hate being asked that question, although they are asked it all the time. The need to do something about a situation is fuelled by the CNN effect—being able to see what is happening in a country. We can say that we are imposing sanctions, but we are not imposing the right sanctions. I hope that the debate will lead to the pursuit of the right sanctions at the right time by the right people, aimed at the oppressor, not the oppressed.
4.10 pm
Ms Tess Kingham: As we have heard from several hon. Members, Angola features prominently in the Select Committee's report on sanctions. It became clear to us during the course of the inquiry that the international sanctions imposed on UNITA in Angola, in an attempt to pressure it into adhering to agreed peace accords, have unconditionally failed the people and the Government of that country, despite the fact that the Angolan Government have done all that the international community has required it to do during its long battle with UNITA.
The background to the situation in Angola makes clear both the need for sanctions and the way in which the sanctions have not been effective. Following Angola's independence in 1975, UNITA unleashed a campaign of terrorism against the Angolan people. Backed by apartheid South Africa and the United States, the campaign's hallmarks were brutal massacres, hostage taking and bomb planting—in short, the whole terrorist repertoire—along with the illegal sale of ivory, which resulted in the slaughter of more than 100,000 elephants.
The countryside was terrorised by many massacres. They included a massacre on 8 February 1986 in Camabatela, Kwanza Norte, in which 107 people were hacked to death with machetes, including the Methodist pastor and four of his children. In 1994, during the occupation of Huambo, UNITA murdered 2,500 people. Many bodies were found down wells. In September 1995, there was a massacre of displaced persons in Celepi centre, where 105 people were slaughtered. The dead included women and children.
There is no doubt that UNITA has devastated Angola. The Minister of State who is here today spoke at the Action for Southern Africa conference last November. I hope that it is in order for me to quote him. He said of Angola:
I am haunted by my visit there in September 1995. Limbless starving people begging everywhere. Gaunt ghost cities like Huambo, its streets lined with stark concrete edifices, every house

279WH
office or shop gutted. Thirty-five years of endless war fuelled by arms and ammunition from Europe. Hopelessness and despair etched on the faces of the people, nearly two million of them displaced.
That was the handiwork of Jonas Savimbi, a creation of the west and the leader of UNITA. Despite their military advances against UNITA, the Angolan Government were committed to co-operating with the international community and initiated a lengthy diplomatic process. On the demand of the international community, the Angolan Government held multi-party elections in 1992 with United Nations monitoring. UNITA fared badly. Savimbi rejected the election results and returned to war. He took 75 per cent. of the country; the UN called it the worst war in the world. In 1994, the Lusaka protocol failed and UNITA did not disarm. Under considerable pressure from the west, the Angolan Government made more major concessions, with UNITA representatives being offered high office. Sadly, that was not to be the stepping stone to peace and reconciliation for which everybody had hoped. Rather, Savimbi and UNITA used the breathing space to rebuild militarily and to re-arm. Re-arming took place under the noses of MONUA, the UN observer mission in Angola. Since 1992, the death toll and destruction inflicted by UNITA has hit record heights.
The international community via the UN targeted UNITA with sanctions. The financial sanctions in place since 1998 and the arms embargo sound good in theory. The intent is sound—to strangle UNITA's supply lines and to deprive Savimbi of resources to continue the war. However, the Select Committee discovered that, in reality, the sanctions have been totally ineffective, as the UN has had pathetically few resources to monitor them and no teeth with which to enforce them. The Committee concluded that
The failure to enforce effectively the sanctions regime against UNITA is a scandal that must be urgently addressed by the international community.
Despite the international ban on diamond sales from UNITA areas, UNITA diamonds regularly find their way on to European diamond markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) noted, and, despite the arms embargo, UNITA has found access to large-scale military equipment, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) pointed out.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, Ambassador Fowler, the chairman of the UN sanctions committee on Angola, said:
Savimbi has earned between US$3 and US$4 billion from diamond marketing over the past eight years. That buys an awful lot of military equipment.
Savimbi is reported to be receiving between five and seven flights an evening, carrying vehicles, guns and even tanks. Ambassador Fowler said:
His part of Angola is landlocked. It's not easy to get 50 tonne tanks into that part of Angola—yet he does that. We might usefully concentrate on how he does that.
No sanctions regime could realistically be expected to stop the sale of UNITA diamonds or to stop arms getting into UNITA's hands, particularly with the amount of small arms floating around Africa as a result of past conflicts. However, one would expect that, once
280WH
the international community had committed itself to sanctions, it would do all in its power to ensure the resources and political will to enforce them. The blatant and gargantuan flouting of sanctions against UNITA makes a mockery of the process.
The Select Committee discovered during its inquiry how little is dedicated to monitoring sanctions within the UN. The UN has no information-gathering capacity of its own. We were told that the Angolan sanctions committee relied on information passed on to it by member states, non-governmental organisations and journalists. Even when information is received, it is unlikely to be followed up, given the derisory resourcing of the sanctions committee. The summary of the meeting of the chairmen of the Security Council sanctions committees in April 1999 noted that some committees were practically non-operational.
Administrative capacity is so low that it would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious. In evidence to the Committee, Ambassador Fowler said:
I have about one third of a person in a UN Secretariat who helps me arrange meetings. My own expenses are paid by the Canadian Government.
That was a shock to the Committee. Once the big, dramatic gesture is made by the international community, we assume that sanctions will be set up, that the UN wheels will go into motion, that resources will be provided, including offices and staff, and that the intelligence gathering networks will swing into action. However, as was said earlier, it is rather like one man and his dog—or perhaps one woman and a dog.
That member states should take the funding of sanctions so lightly is an insult to the millions who have perished directly or indirectly as a result of the Angolan war. It is also an insult to the Angolan Government, who have followed UN advice at each stage in the hope for peace. Until peace comes to Angola, its people will never benefit from development. The infrastructure is shot to pieces, the health and education systems are decimated and extreme poverty is the norm. Angola must sit alongside Rwanda as a country that has been totally let down by the United Nations and its member states.
Despite the odds stacked against him, Ambassador Fowler has done a remarkable job. Many were impressed when he gave evidence to the Committee. He has established two expert panels to investigate the flow of diamond money and weapons to Savimbi. I am pleased to say that the UK Government have taken a leading role in the funding of that operation. I was also delighted yesterday to hear the Foreign Office announce a new initiative on the global certification of diamonds. I hope that the Government will support the campaign to indict Jonas Savimbi as a war criminal. The Select Committee heard that it may spur UN member states to enforce sanctions against UNITA more vigorously if Savimbi is known to be a wanted war criminal.
Due to the work of Ambassador Fowler, there is hope that sanctions against UNITA may be made more effective and may contribute towards the end of the war and the future development of Angola. It is imperative that the overall resourcing, status and effectiveness of the UN sanctions committee is reviewed. The Select Committee recommends establishing a properly staffed and financed UN sanctions unit to receive and co-

281WH
ordinate information on financial sanctions and to press Governments to implement them. That is the least that many of those countries should demand from the international community. I hope that the Government will press for that urgently. Smart UN sanctions, properly applied and enforced, could be a useful tool in resolving conflicts. At present, however, member states seem content with making diplomatic gestures—what my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) called window dressing—rather than making sanctions work. The casualties of that apathy are the people of countries such as Angola.
In the autumn, world leaders will gather for the UN millennium General Assembly. I hope that they will use that opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to meeting the development assistance committee's targets to halve world poverty by 2015. I hope, too, that the opportunity will be grasped to consider some of the more fundamental structural and resourcing changes that are needed to make the UN an effective body in the new millennium. The role of sanctions committees could be raised at that summit, and I hope that the Government will use every opportunity to do so.
Angola celebrates its 25th anniversary of independence later this year. It can never truly reap the benefits of independence while its people suffer poverty and under-development. If sanctions against UNITA work, and Savimbi is destroyed, the people of Angola would have a silver jubilee to celebrate. I hope that the Government, with their renewed commitment to Angola will contribute to making that happen.
4.20 pm
Ms Oona King: The debate has seen an inherent tension, almost a contradiction, between two inescapable facts—first, that Saddam Hussein is ultimately responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, and, secondly, that the comprehensive economic sanctions imposed by the international community have caused the serious deterioration of the humanitarian and developmental situation in Iraq.
My thoughts at the beginning of the inquiry were informed largely by the former view. After all, we must remember that Saddam Hussein is willing to commit genocide at the drop of a hat. When the Iraqi football team lost a match, he had the footballers taken off the plane and tortured—the English football team might be relieved that we do not employ the same tactics. Saddam Hussein is also intent on manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. There is incontrovertible evidence that that is the case, and the international community and the Government have a responsibility to take action.
As the Select Committee found, however, although sanctions are a low-cost alternative to war, they are all too often as damaging in humanitarian and developmental terms as armed conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) gave a devastating critique of Saddam's regime. She listed in detail the grotesque human rights abuses committed by Hussein. He, his army and his death squads have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people—20,000, 30,000, 50,000, even 100,000, who knows?
282WH
However, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) pointed out, UNICEF estimates that sanctions have caused the death of 500,000 children. That is another contradiction. As it might be controversial, I shall quote the report. It states:
UNICEF estimated that, if the substantial reductions in child mortality achieved throughout Iraq in the 1980s had continued into the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths under five in the country as a whole in the eight year period from 1991 to 1998.
Whether or not those figures are exact, two facts remain—first, that sanctions have failed to dislodge Saddam Hussein, and, secondly, that sanctions have hurt the ordinary people of Iraq, particularly children, and that those people have been hurt more than the ruling elite. That is why the Committee concluded that
If sanctions are to be retained as a credible instrument of foreign policy, they must increasingly seek to target the assets of specific groups or individuals responsible for breaches of international law…The Committee recommends that the United Kingdom argue and gather support for the establishment of a properly staffed and financed sanctions unit within the United Nations to receive and coordinate information on the enforcement of financial sanctions.
I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Everybody knows that ordinary Iraqis are suffering. British people know that. One of my constituents, Andrea Needham, travelled to Iraq in 1998 carrying medicines to a children's hospital. Andrea and I have disagreed. I took a view fundamentally different from hers, and more or less suggested that the suffering of the people of Iraqi people must be laid at the door of Saddam Hussein. None the less, I agreed with her comments when she wrote to me and said:
even if you believe that the responsibility for the suffering in Iraq lies with Saddam Hussein, the UN Security Council remains accountable to human rights principles regardless of the conduct of the Iraqi government. Intransigence by a government does not give the Security Council the right to punish that country's citizens. Human rights are based on the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, and are owed directly to individuals. They are not forfeited because of a government's alleged misconduct, especially when—as in the case of Iraq—citizens have no voice in the decisions of the government.
Many of my colleagues have argued convincingly that, although we need a sanctions regime in Iraq to deal with the behaviour of Saddam Hussein, we must change the policy that we have at the moment. I will not rehearse those arguments because we have heard them in full. A sanction that is not applied currently but which should be applied is that of the International Criminal Court. We have touched on that subject, but it is important to recognise that individual criminal liability already exists.
We must consider the UK record. We have had no prosecutions under the Geneva conventions, or under the United Nations convention against torture. We have had only one prosecution under the post-war treaties, and that was under the War Crimes Act 1991 and specifically concerned crimes in Belarus during the second world war. However, if we wanted to take responsibility on certain matters, we could. We could follow the Swiss example, for instance. The Swiss have indicted war criminals living in Switzerland. We have war criminals in Britain. We are talking in general about sanctions, but if we allow the culture of impunity to continue, we will do nothing in the long term to discourage criminals such as Saddam Hussein.

283WH
There have been criticisms regarding delays affecting humanitarian goods going to Iraq. Richardson Supply Company Ltd., in my constituency, was requested by the World Food Programme to supply computers for its project in Iraq. The managing director, Justin McArdle, explained:
We received an order for…computers and software…Accompanying the order were United Nations Security Council Authorisation letters acknowledging notification of the intention… We subsequently sent copies of the purchase order and the UN letters of authorisation to the DTI Sanctions Unit on 3rd April 1998 to support our request for an export licence… We finally received the export licence…on 9th July 1998…The World Food Programme have indicated to us that they are considering abandoning the United Kingdom as a source for computer products because of the inexplicable delay which they have experienced in receiving this order…An element of common sense would have allowed these humanitarian supplies to be despatched with the minimum of delay—the World Food Programme is a United Nations agency.
The problem is that there has been a significant absence of common sense in the sanctions debate. That point was brought back to me most clearly to me when I visited Burundi, where regional sanctions had been imposed. The United Kingdom Government were not involved with the imposition of those regional sanctions, but we had imposed our own form of sanctions to the extent that we were involved in providing humanitarian assistance but not developmental assistance.
When I talk about a lack of common sense, I am referring, for example, to young children being taken to the feeding centre funded by our Government, leaving when they reached a certain body weight to return to their village, only to return within a month or two because the Government have stopped our programmes to provide clean water—that was termed development assistance, not humanitarian assistance—they have fallen sick; our money again pays to get them up to a certain weight. That does no one any good, nor does it help us to achieve our aims.
The British Government have been strident in their efforts to seek out abusers of human rights, and to adopt an ethical foreign policy, for which we have received little thanks, I might add. I support the Foreign Office fully when it says that it is better to try to take an ethical approach than not to make the effort in the first place.
The British Government should consider seriously how to improve the targeting of sanctions, which has been argued for cogently today. For example, the current sanctions regime against Iraq is not working. It is not achieving our goals and it is harming the lives of ordinary Iraqis. I hope that the Minister will be able to take the Committee's inquiry into account. It was a long inquiry, and at its outset I was entirely in agreement with those who argued that we must maintain the present sanctions regime, and that the problems were entirely Saddam Hussein's fault. That last point is, of course, true. If he wanted to divert resources towards feeding his people, he could. However, he does not want to. The Select Committee report states:
A sanctions regime which relies on the good faith of Saddam Hussein is fundamentally flawed.
4.33 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: This has been a very good debate so far, and I congratulate the Select Committee, of which I have fairly recently become a member, on producing such a readable and detailed report. It addresses some very serious issues. I should also like to thank the Minister for the useful Government response.
I want to comment mainly on the sections of the report that concern Iraq. I want also to thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for taking me back a decade or more to the time when I worked in Iraq for five months and was able to experience Saddam Hussein's regime at first hand. I can confirm many of the points that she made. For example, the stories about deserters being rounded up and shot, and their families being called in and given the bodies while being charged for the bullets, were circulating when I was in Iraq in 1987 and 1988.
I should explain that I was in Iraq to put in a computer for the university, and agreed to go for a year. On the second day, a military wagon pulled up outside the university and a major got out. I was asked if I wanted to see the Ministry of Defence computers. I agreed—I do not know what would have happened if I had said no—and we went to six different computer sites, all of which had British equipment. There was an arms embargo at the time because of Iraq's war against Iran and I do not know how the equipment got through to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence. During the conflict over the invasion of Kuwait, I was able to identify on television some of the buildings being obliterated by allied bombers. I had been in some of those buildings.
The Saddam Hussein regime is very harsh and has no regard for human rights. A large notice on the board at work stated that under no circumstances should the Government be criticised in any way because it would lead to an automatic life sentence. Everyone in this country would have been locked up had that rule applied under the previous Government.
I was supposed to remain in Iraq for a year, but stayed for only five months, having got the job done super quick, and I can honestly say that that was the worst five months of my life. I have a firm line on sanctions, which is that we need to continue them, although we certainly need to make them smarter. It is 10 years since the tanks rolled across the border into Kuwait. Saddam Hussein is still in power, but most of the western leaders who opposed him are not. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is still a Member of the House but is no longer Prime Minister and President Bush is no longer President of the United States. Saddam Hussein has become the albatross around the neck of the international community. He is a constant reminder of defiance in the face of, initially, overwhelming force and, later, unending economic and diplomatic pressure. He does not need to confront irritating elections, but he cannot slip into retirement. The only alternative for him and his cohorts in the Ba'ath party, other than remaining in power, is oblivion. That is a basic fact of Iraqi political life and the starting point for all his strategic consultations. Such is the bluntness of the tools available to the international community—the United Nations and allied powers—that Iraq's cheat and retreat strategy is remarkably successful in sustaining

285WH
the Ba'ath party and transferring the blame for the suffering of its people on to the international community and particularly the USA.
Saddam has been successful in slowly defusing the alliance against him. Only Britain and the United States now stand prepared to oppose Iraq militarily. Other partners, both in Europe and the middle east, although concurring with the necessity to contain Iraq, are not prepared to sustain the united front that ejected Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Russia is owed approximately $5 billion and is keen to see the Iraqi regime in a position to begin repayment. Ankara is also owed a considerable sum. There has been informed speculation that the interests of French oil companies have been instrumental in France's reticence to contribute to the maintenance of the no-fly zones and its stance in the Security Council. The computers that I saw in Iraq's Ministry of Defence 12 years ago were obtained with loans from the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which have not been repaid. The British taxpayer paid for the computers in Saddam Hussein's military installations.
Kofi Annan is worried that Saddam is winning the propaganda war and stated:
the humanitarian situation in Iraq poses a serious moral dilemma for the Organisation. The United Nations has always been on the side of the vulnerable and the weak, and has always sought to relieve suffering, yet here we are accused of causing suffering to an entire population. We are in danger of losing the argument, or the propaganda war—if we haven't lost it already—about who is responsible for this situation in Iraq—President Saddam Hussein or the United Nations.
Clearly, it is President Saddam Hussein. The sanctions are necessary to stop him building up his arsenal. He has a huge number of weapons. I have a list that shows his potential for causing significant damage in the region. It says that with sufficient black market uranium or plutonium, Iraq could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. Iraq does not yet have that uranium or plutonium, but, if we lift sanctions, those items will be first on the shopping list. Iraq could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.
Iraq retains stockpiles of chemical weapon munitions, including special chemical-biological al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads. I was in Iraq when it proudly announced that it had made its own missile—the al-Hussein—which was a variation of an imported missile. Iraq has 2,000 aerial bombs, between 15,000 and 20,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells. It has biological weapons, which it has used. It has components for dozens of Scud B and al-Hussein missiles, as well as indigenously produced scud missile engines. It has cruise missile equivalents and Exocets—I wonder where they came from—and delivery systems that include approximately 300 fixed-wing aircraft. There is still a lot of stuff, and, if we lift the sanctions, Saddam will build up his arsenal and begin the development of nuclear weapons with which to threaten his neighbours and others.
We have heard that the sanctions are having a devastating effect on the people of Iraq. It is estimated that, as a result of the war and sanctions, Iraq's gross domestic product fell by nearly two thirds in 1991, because of an 85 per cent. decline in oil production. Per capita income fell from $3,416 a year to $1,500 in 1991, and has since decreased to less than $1,036. In 1995, it
286WH
was estimated to be as low as $450. Most of the Iraqi people are being asked to live on about $4 a day. Meanwhile, average shop prices for essential commodities stand at 850 times the level in July 1990. When I visited Iraq, I saw how the shelves in supermarkets would be stacked with just one product. One week, it was corn oil, so everyone bought that; the following week, the corn oil was gone, but there were toilet rolls—that was a good week. Even then, during the Iran-Iraq war, there was little in the shops. Prices have since gone up, and the people face shortages. The Government's response tells us that
Iraq's oil revenues are back to—if not above—their peak historical level of around $15 billion per annum, seen only briefly in 1980—
and—
this means a potential $10 billion a year is available for the humanitarian programme.
We must get the message to the people of Iraq that it is Saddam Hussein who is preventing $10 billion of humanitarian assistance from coming into the country.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that we should get away from the "something must be done" syndrome and identify what can be done. There are two strategies. One is to increase international pressure, and the other is to sweeten the current sanctions. The key is to co-opt Russia. Russia's President Putin is vital to putting pressure on Saddam, whether through a visit or a Russo-Iraqi conference. That might break the deadlock, and our Government should try to persuade President Putin to play that important role. Iraq owes Russia £5 billion for equipment purchased, including weapons and fighter aircraft, so it is in the president's interest to get Iraq back into the international community.
We need to ease the pain that sanctions against Iraq are indirectly inflicting on neighbouring countries, particularly Jordan, Turkey and Russia. That should be considered to prevent unilateral moves to break the UN embargo. Various countries, particularly Turkey, are breaking the sanctions. On a visit to Bahrain a couple of years ago, I boarded HMS Cumberland, which was on sanctions duty. Every night, it left the Shatt al-Arab waterway to try to stop Saddam Hussein's oil tankers from disappearing into the night with illegal shipments of oil. That sanctions duty continues to be fulfilled by other vessels.
We must continue to repair relations with Iran. Notwithstanding legitimate human rights concerns and Iran's continuing support of terrorism, the balance of power in the middle east requires that Iraq be particularly sensitive to Iranian diplomacy. A non-rogue Iran would boost the position of the majority Shi'ite population and undermine the Ba'athist regime.
Peace in the middle east is also very important. I visited Israel just two weeks ago, and met President Weizman, who is retiring shortly. I also met Shimon Peres, who said that peace in the middle east must be sorted out between Israel, Syria and the other countries, before one of them develops nuclear weapons. He did not mention Iraq, but I think that he had Iraq in mind. Most countries in the middle east have accepted that Israel has a right to exist, but I wish that something could be done about the Palestinian settlements. I visited one settlement, and the conditions were pretty

287WH
squalid. The peace issue must be resolved, so that Saddam Hussein will know that he is taking on not just Israel but other countries in the region.
We also need to win the propaganda war. Were Saddam to comply with the current Security Council resolution, sanctions could be lifted in 120 days. There should be a 120-days campaign in Jordan and the Gulf states, so that people in the region can start to put pressure on Saddam.
We must also reform the United Nations. The inspection regimes are too western oriented, and there should be more Arabs on the inspection bodies to help ensure Iraqi compliance. That would sweeten the implementation of UN security resolution 1284, and might encourage Saddam to realise that there is another purpose to it. Otherwise, we are engaged in mere containment. If containment were not damaging the population of Iraq, we could live with it, but, as the figures have shown, the number of deaths, particularly among children, is increasing. We must persuade the United Nations to review the sanctions and to make them smarter, and to move in the direction that I have outlined.
4.50 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I wholeheartedly welcome the debate and praise the Select Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), on its report.
The report has raised a number of important issues about the effectiveness of sanctions and their impact on the populations affected by them. We have heard some excellent speeches this afternoon on matters ranging from what happened in South Africa in the past to the current situation in Angola, Burma, Sierra Leone and, most pertinently, in Iraq. The speeches have been comprehensive and worthwhile. On a personal note, I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) in his place.
The key question is how best sanctions can be targeted against countries and particularly against individual leaders without harming civilian members of the population. That is dealt with comprehensively in the Committee's report. We now look to the Government to take on board the Committee's conclusions, so that innocent civilian populations do not bear the brunt of sanctions and that the ruling elite of the country that is subject to the sanctions is effectively punished. The Committee's discussion of smart sanctions is a positive way forward and should be looked at carefully.
I was pleased to see from the Government's response that they share the Committee's belief that the most careful consideration must be given to the humanitarian impact of sanctions. I share that belief. The Committee suggested that sanctions, if not properly implemented, may have an unforeseen humanitarian impact on a country's population. The Committee concluded that, based on clear evidence, the impact of sanctions may fall disproportionately on certain vulnerable groups in society such as women, children, those with disabilities, and refugee groups.
288WH
The UN Security Council has invoked chapter VII of the UN charter in 15 cases to date with sanctions having been lifted in four of those cases and suspended in one. The Committee looked at such cases in detail and it has highlighted a vacuum in international relations between military intervention on one hand and diplomacy on the other. If that vacuum can be filled through effective and targeted use of sanctions, it will mean not only that innocent populations suffer less, but also that the world community will have greater confidence in the use of sanctions.
The report details two strands in the concept of smarter sanctions: to improve their efficacy by targeting those in power and those who support them, and to reduce their humanitarian impact on civilian populations. That is to be welcomed. The Committee concludes that some sanctions implemented in the past may in fact have had a greater impact on the innocent population than on the leadership of that country. That is important. In evidence to the Select Committee, the Government seem to have accepted that, in their review of sanctions policy, there is a need to move away from the so-called blunderbuss approach, which hits the whole population with sanctions rather than targets the regime specifically. We support that stance.
One form of smarter sanctions that the Committee explored was so-called private sanctions targeted specifically on individuals of the ruling elite rather than on the population as a whole. The Committee's report at paragraph 64 states:
Witnesses have suggested that targeted financial sanctions might offer significant potential to exert pressure on the political elite of a target country,
for example, by freezing their assets. However, during the discussions at Interlaken 2, the chairman, Ambassador Rolf Jeker stated in his report that it was
indicated that much of the conceptual, technical and practical elements required to bring targeted financial sanctions into effect are available and could be effected whenever the Security Council decides to impose targeted financial sanctions.
I agree with the ambassador's conclusions at the end of the Interlaken seminar that:
if you shoot at a big target, your weapon does not need to be very accurate—it can be a scatter gun like the comprehensive sanctions applied in the past. If the target is small, the weapon must be very accurate.
Indeed, even smarter sanctions targeted against individuals in the ruling elite of a sanctioned country need careful and considered implementation if the weapon of private sanctions is not to fire like a scattergun.
However, the Committee was right to note in its report that the potential of private financial sanctions remains untested. We must therefore proceed with caution. The UN has rarely mandated the use of financial sanctions against individual members of a transgressor state.
States are free to impose whatever sanctions they wish, so long as they do not conflict with other obligations. Switzerland is often singled out as an example, because it is not a member of the United Nations and is therefore not subject to UN Security Council resolutions. However, it voluntarily introduces its own legislation to track UN legislation. That is necessary to ensure that, when sanctions are

289WH
implemented, they have the full backing of all those who will enforce them. That will be all the more necessary in future, as some of the concepts of smarter sanctions detailed in the Committee's report remain, as yet, untested.
Some have said that unilateral economic sanctions sometimes prove counterproductive, because they undermine a target country's emerging middle classes, not its political leaders. Many countries, such as Chile, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, have seen that the development of a large, financially secure middle class is necessary before authoritarian Governments can give way to democracy.
The report states that withdrawal of development assistance can sometimes have a greater impact than traditional sanctions. The Government seem unsure of their policy on that subject, and I hope that the Minister of State will provide some clarification. For example, the Government refused to stop Government-to-Government aid to Zimbabwe, but seriously cut aid to Ethiopia, although both countries were undergoing a period of considerable instability and tension. Will the Minister of State clarify the criteria that the Government use when deciding to suspend Government-to-Government aid? Does he agree that, instead of withdrawing aid altogether, more aid should be provided through non-governmental organisations?
The Committee was right to address the enforcement of sanctions, especially with regard to arms embargoes. Arms embargoes are becoming widely used by the Security Council, so we must ensure that, where sanctions are imposed, they are effectively implemented. The Committee underlined the need to tighten controls on arms embargoes. What do the Government plan to do in response to that?
Sanctions are effective only if they are properly monitored. I share the Committee's concerns that the quality of reporting to sanctions committees remains low. The report rightly concludes that the United Kingdom must take a lead by putting in place a system that can target and monitor sanctions effectively. The current approach is somewhat casual. That is not helped by the Government's failure to allow NGOs formally to input evidence on the review of sanctions. Surely, NGO reports are vital. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that NGOs are formally consulted on Government approaches and attitudes to sanctions?
The failure of the Security Council's sanctions committees in effecting sanctions against sanctioned countries must be addressed to end the passive nature of monitoring and enforcement. The principle of smart sanctions used as a tool against oppressive regimes will be redundant unless there is effective supervision of their execution against sanctioned countries. The use of sanctions against President Mugabe stopped the Land Rover project and implemented arms embargoes. Under what circumstances will they be lifted, and do the Government have any plans to do so?
We must recognise where the blame for suffering in countries such as Iraq really lies. We were all moved by hon. Members' speeches on Iraq. Its people face an horrific situation. Last Friday, The Independent carried a report from Hans Blix, chairman of the new UN commission for inspecting arms in Iraq, in which he warned that Baghdad might block his inspections
290WH
because of its "fury" over sanctions. Indeed, a former UN weapons inspector, Carl Ritter, has called for economic sanctions against Iraq to be lifted.
Saddam Hussein has chosen not to use the oil for food arrangements to provide adequate health care and social services for his citizens. He has instead chosen to purchase weapons. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) movingly pointed out the comment made by Jeremy Carver, the partner and head of international law at Clifford Chance, that
It is not the imposition or maintenance of international sanctions, but the policies of the Iraqi Government which are the primary cause of this suffering.
I absolutely believe that to be true.
The use of smart sanctions outlined in the report, if properly targeted against the ruling elites of sanctioned countries, can help to ensure that in future the guilty will ultimately be punished and that the innocent populations of those countries do not suffer as they have so often. That is a worthy objective. The Committee's findings in this excellent report on the future of sanctions are indeed to be supported.
5 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Hain): I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that the International Development Committee's report on sanctions provides a valuable and thought-provoking contribution to the debate, which the Government are taking very seriously. Having considered it, we are seeking to modify and improve our approach.
I must, however, disagree with the Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who said that sanctions had never been effective in any case in which they had been applied. His fellow Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), refuted that statement by speaking from her own experience of the conclusive effect of sanctions on bringing down apartheid. I also agree with her that, if those sanctions had been more rigorously applied earlier and had been better targeted, apartheid might have been brought down even earlier.
Sanctions are the only coercive measure available to us, other than the use of force, to respond to threats to international peace and security as provided for under the United Nations charter. Over the past decade, the UN Security Council and the European Union have made increasing use of sanctions. When Britain sees a pressing need for sanctions to exert pressure on a rogue regime, but a Security Council resolution is not achievable, we shall press for European Union action, as was the case most recently over Burma.
I agree with all the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on the atrocious denial of human rights and democracy in Burma. In response to the severe and systematic violation of human rights and continuing repression in that country, the United Kingdom persuaded its partners in Europe to adopt, on 16 April, a common position strengthening the existing sanctions against Burma by the addition of an asset freeze targeted at key figures in the leadership and military and a ban on the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression. I think that that answers many of the points that my hon. Friend raised.

291WH
With experience, we have become better able to design sanctions regimes to have the maximum impact on leadership elites and/or their military capability while minimising their impact on ordinary people. Britain has played a leading role in shaping the emerging international consensus in favour of smarter sanctions, to which the Committee has rightly directed its attention, and about which my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Stevenage, among others, spoke.
At the request of the Department for International Development, the Overseas Development Institute hosted an international symposium in December 1998 on smarter sanctions. Since then, we have played an active part in seminars sponsored by the Swiss Government on developing targeted financial sanctions, and by the German Government on arms embargoes and travel sanctions. In the United Nations Security Council, we check the fine print of draft sanctions resolutions—as we are doing at present in relation to Sierra Leone—to ensure that the findings of those seminars are fully taken into account.
We strongly supported the recent establishment of a Security Council working group to develop recommendations on improving the effectiveness of UN sanctions. The answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford on that issue is yes, the working group has already been established and all members of the Security Council belong to it. The secretariat is providing administrative support, and Britain is devoting resources to ensure that the working group develops practical recommendations that will improve the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions.
We shall feed into that group the conclusions of the recent Foreign Office and Department for International Development mission to the United Nations, which examined ways to strengthen the UN secretariat's capacity to support the Security Council and the sanctions committee in respect of sanctions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and others—
Mr. Worthington: My constituency is difficult to pronounce. Milngavie is pronounced "mullguy".
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): The hon. Gentleman has borne it very well—we had already noticed.
Mr. Hain: I represent one of the Welsh constituencies, some of which hon. Members have even more difficulty pronouncing, so I plead guilty.
The Committee invited the Government to make a statement on our sanctions policy, the core of which can be summarised simply. Sanctions are most effective when they are multilateral, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage noted. They are not intended to be punitive, and they should be imposed to achieve specified objectives. The criteria for lifting sanctions should be made clear from the outset, and they should not be lifted until the target has complied with the criteria. As far as is possible, sanctions should be targeted to hit leadership elites and impact minimally on ordinary people. They
292WH
should be tailored to circumstances, and there should be effective implementation, enforcement and monitoring arrangements. Humanitarian exemptions and the mechanisms for their effective implementation should be built into sanctions regimes, as appropriate, from the outset.
That is the ideal for which we will strive. Multilateral sanctions are, of necessity, the result of a negotiation process. We are doing our utmost to enhance existing procedures for implementing sanctions, often in the face of considerable opposition from member states in the United Nations. As far as I know, Britain is the only country in the world that has established a dedicated sanctions unit that co-ordinates all aspects of Government sanctions policy and administration. We have ensured that the lessons learned from one sanctions regime are taken into account when designing others.
The Committee noted the potential of financial sanctions, as a form of smarter sanctions, to target leadership elites. The UK currently implements UN financial sanctions in relation to the Taliban, Angola's UNITA rebel army and Iraq. We also implement EU sanctions in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Burma. In answer to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, British banks and building societies hold more than $850 million in frozen funds that were identified as belonging to the targets of UN or EU sanctions.
We take our international obligation to implement financial sanctions seriously, and go to considerable lengths to ensure that they are implemented effectively. The Bank of England, which acts as an agent for the Treasury in the administration of financial sanctions, has a dedicated unit—the sanctions emergency unit—that works solely on that task. We want financial sanctions to become a more effective tool for putting pressure on international pariahs, such as UNITA's Jonas Savimbi.
Barbara Follett: With regard to Angola, will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that other countries take their obligations as seriously as Britain does? For example, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Zambia and Rwanda are supplying the UNITA regime, as are business men such as Mr. Victor Bout, whose planes are transporting supplies to UNITA in Angola.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Victor Bout is the main sanctions-buster in respect of Angola and Sierra Leone. Together with our agencies, the Government are taking what action we can to try to ensure that that activity stops. She is also right to say that he and others use light planes to transport supplies from Kigali airport, Burkina Faso, Monrovia and other places to airstrips in Angola that are controlled by UNITA. It is imperative that the Governments of all the countries to which she referred take the maximum possible action to stop the flights. After all, they are African countries, and a fellow African state is being destroyed and its people devastated by the continuing civil war.

293WH
Effective enforcement depends on agencies proactively seeking information on targets and sharing it with members of the international community. To that end, British sanctions experts liaise regularly with experts in other countries. International meetings at which sanctions-related issues are discussed are held regularly, and information is exchanged between the United Kingdom and other United Nations and European Union member states.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford made a strong case on Iraq, but it was brilliantly answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) with the most detailed and devastating indictment of Saddam Hussein's murderous activity and repression of his people. We have made a serious difference to the lives of the Iraqi people. United Nations resolution 1284, which we drove through the Security Council in seven to eight months of painstaking negotiation, could create a totally new situation in Iraq and is beginning to do so. We should urge Iraq to comply with that resolution, rather than continue to identify the problems associated with the past regime, which we have sought to reform with the new resolution.
The new resolution provides for the early suspension of sanctions: it was designed to do so. Britain took the lead in achieving that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, there is a simple answer to those who want the sanctions on Iraq lifted or suspended—they should back resolution 1284. That is what I say to the Chairman of the Committee. Even though Baghdad has not accepted it, the resolution has already raised the ceiling on Iraqi oil exports. An estimated $10 billion will be available for the humanitarian programme this year. That is a huge amount, and it will make a real difference to the people of Iraq.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) quoted UNICEF statistics. Other UNICEF statistics show that child mortality rates in northern Iraq—where Saddam Hussein's writ does not run, but where exactly the same sanctions apply—are lower than they were before sanctions were applied. We ought to recognise that comparison with northern Iraq.
If the Iraqi people continue to suffer, it will be clearer than ever that it is Saddam Hussein who is denying his people food and medicine. He wants to play on our emotions with their undoubted suffering in the hope of weakening our resolve, while he rebuilds weapons of mass destruction with which to threaten the region. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) expertly described that scenario.
We continue to refine and streamline procedures at the United Nations to ensure that more humanitarian contracts are approved and approved more quickly. On our initiative, the sanctions committee has agreed lists of foodstuffs, medical, agricultural and educational goods and spare parts for the oil industry that no longer need to be referred to the committee, only notified to the United Nations secretariat. Already, contracts worth almost $1 billion have been processed through that accelerated procedure. That makes a real difference.
European Union sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were put in place because Milosevic was responsible for the most brutal campaign of terror in Kosovo. He continues to wage a campaign of repression against his own people. We shall continue
294WH
to target sanctions as closely as possible on that regime and its supporters and we shall monitor the situation for any adverse humanitarian impact.
The plight of the Angolan people was eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham)—perhaps no more eloquently than when she quoted me. The United Kingdom has put extra resources and diplomatic energy into turning the spotlight on violations of UN sanctions against UNITA.
On a personal note, when I became Minister of State 11 months ago, I was amazed at how little active energy was put into using the enormous intelligence in sanctions-busting to put pressure on Jonas Savimbi's UNITA group. We are now beginning to do that, and we are calling on others to do the same. We are particularly alert to suggestions of sanction busting by UK nationals or from UK territory. We shall immediately inform the appropriate authorities of such reports. The sanctions in place include arms and fuel embargoes, a targeted asset freeze, the closure of UNITA's overseas offices, a travel ban on senior UNITA officials, restrictions on the sale of mining equipment and a ban on the import of uncertificated Angolan diamonds. All those measures have been carefully calculated to put pressure on UNITA and undermine its ability to continue fighting without harming ordinary Angolans. In that sense, they are a good example of smarter sanctions.
Last year, the Security Council established an expert panel to investigate reports of sanctions violations and to make recommendations on how to improve the implementation of sanctions. I accept many of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie made about it being a somewhat toothless operation. Nevertheless, by UN standards it is and has been an effective body. As the members of the Committee have said, Ambassador Fowler deserves considerable praise for the way in which he drove it through against many obstacles. We strongly supported the panel's efforts and contributed $200,000 to fund its work.
In resolution 1295 of 18 April, the Security Council formally welcomed the panel's report, which contained valuable information on sanctions busting. In response to the panel's recommendation, the council requested the Secretary-General to establish a monitoring mechanism, which I shall describe. Five experts will collect additional relevant information and investigate allegations. We hope that a UK national will be appointed. We shall give the monitors every support in that important task. I look to the new monitoring mechanism to take forward the pioneering work of the expert panel. It is essential that international sanctions should be made more effective.
I respond next to the well expressed points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Clydebank and Milngavie. Enforcement of UN sanctions is the responsibility of United Nations member states, not the UN itself. The United States of America, Russia and other countries would strongly resist giving the UN greater investigative powers. That is one of the problems with which we are grappling, and we need to deal with that as best we can.

295WH
On the question of diamonds, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie mentioned Liberia. I agree that the revolutionary united front would not be able to carry out its war of mutilation against the people of Sierra Leone were it not for the diamonds that it smuggles across the border to Liberia. Indeed, they do not need to be smuggled; one can simply walk across the border. Liberia must account for its role in fuelling that bloody war. A United Nations Security Council resolution to enforce diamond sanctions on Sierra Leone will, I hope, be agreed shortly—perhaps in days—mainly as a result of British pressure. I think that Liberia will have to be included in the scope of the measure as well.
I have given special priority to the enforcement of sanctions against traders in blood diamonds from Angola, Sierra Leone and the Congo. The Government continue to play a leading role in international efforts to tackle the problem. We want to ensure that when people buy a diamond from a jeweller's shop they will know when they put it on the finger of their loved one that they are not pledging a diamond that has cut off the finger of a child in Sierra Leone or Angola. That message must go out to people buying diamonds in jewellery shops across the world.
Yesterday, I hosted a ground-breaking meeting of leading diamond importing and marketing countries to discuss the way forward: never before had representatives of Belgium, India, Israel, the United States and the international diamond industry, with Canadians and Russians also attending, gathered to discuss the problem. I called on importing and marketing states to continue to intensify their efforts to deny blood diamonds access to their markets, stressing the urgency of denying UNITA, the RUF in Sierra Leone and groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo the means to wage the vicious wars in which so many innocent lives are being lost. I also emphasised the need to improve the transparency of the international diamond trade to maintain consumer confidence and to protect the legitimate trade on which so many livelihoods depend. Clean diamond producers in countries such as Botswana, Namibia and South Africa must be protected. It is in their interests and those of the whole industry to block the trade in blood diamonds.
Yesterday's meeting agreed several specific steps that could be taken straight away to help. They included, most importantly, working with others to explore the feasibility of a global certification scheme for rough diamonds. I strongly support that proposal, and hope that other Governments, especially in southern Africa, will join us in pressing for it. We will encourage diamond banks, insurance companies and shipping companies with links to the diamond industry to require customers to sign a declaration that they will not trade in conflict diamonds. The trade bodies of Antwerp and Tel Aviv have already, I am glad to say, agreed to suspend or to expel members found trading in conflict diamonds. We will call on those trade bodies and others internationally and nationally to encourage their members to make it clear that no diamonds are feeding conflicts in any of their diamond parcels.
296WH
The meeting also agreed important steps for sharing expertise to help to combat illegal trafficking. They included offers of training, including technical assistance, to diamond authorities in producer countries and co-operation between national customs authorities and the industry to identify practical measures to improve the availability of diamond identification expertise.
We also want to ensure that hard currency is involved in diamond trades. Sanctions busters such as Victor Bout fly into UNITA territory with a plane full of arms and take off with bags of diamonds not paid for in hard currency. We want the international diamond regime to insist on proper transactions being properly accounted for and receipted and made in hard currency or being conducted using properly certificated financial exchange, without which diamonds would not be allowed to enter the international trading loop. That would take us a big step forward. We want to help to crack down on the illicit diamond trade and to restore consumer confidence in the legitimate diamond industry.
I will respond to a few of the points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk. He compared Ethiopia with Zimbabwe. There was a war in Ethiopia—it is still going on to some extent—and we could not increase our aid in items that could have been diverted easily into maintaining that war, although we continued to supply food aid because of the famine. Zimbabwe's situation was different. We have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and have restricted aid to a minimal level to deal with severe problems, such as AIDS and anti-poverty measures.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want us to cut aid to tackle the crisis of AIDS in Zimbabwe, where one in four citizens are infected. We will not increase aid to Zimbabwe by an extra £36 million—we have promised that we could do so to deal with problem of land reform—unless its policies change. The President of Zimbabwe has imposed a sort of negative sanctions regime on himself by adopting policies that do not allow countries such as Britain to provide the support that we want to provide. We agree that NGOs play a vital role in the provision of development aid and assistance. The Secretary of State for International Development has a clear policy on that. We consult NGOs on sanctions policy, as well as on wider policies. Indeed, there has never been a more open-door policy towards NGOs than the one pursued by the present Government.
Controls on arms are now stricter than they have been under any previous British Government, and certainly are much stricter than they were under the previous Government, which exported hundreds of millions of arms to the Suharto regime in Indonesia to crack down on the people of East Timor. The Scott committee reported on the scandal of arms to Iraq. We now have a more accountable, open and transparent arms export regime. We do not export arms where they could be used for internal repression or external aggression. That might not be perfect, and we are always looking for improvements, but it is a better regime than has ever existed before. In addition, we have pledged to introduce legislation to curb the trafficking and brokering of arms, which continues despite our tightened policy. I am grateful to the Committee for its

297WH
hard work on the report, which we take very seriously, and to hon. Members who have contributed to an excellent debate this afternoon.
Ann Clwyd: As we have three minutes left, may I use the time to put a question to the Minister?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Lady has the leave of the Chamber.
Ann Clwyd: Before my hon. Friend leaves the Chamber, I should like to press him on one question that he did not answer. In addition to pressing for the acceptance of resolution 1284, will the United Kingdom make some attempt to secure the official establishment of an ad hoc tribunal on Iraqi war crimes by the United Nations? That is very important, especially as war
298WH
crimes tribunals have been set up for so many other countries. So much evidence is available that I can see no reason why the UN should not take that action.
Mr. Hain rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I take it that the Minister has the permission of the Chamber to speak again.
Mr. Hain: I agree that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal: no one could dispute that. The issue is how such a tribunal could be created, but I am extremely sympathetic to the idea. As my hon. Friend will know, I have spoken on platforms for Indict, the campaign which she chairs and which the Foreign Office and I strongly support. The problem that she has identified is not easy to solve, but we will certainly bear in mind the points that she has argued so forcefully and do what we can.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

HEALTH

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the North of London Breast Screening Unit based at Edgware Community Hospital; and what proposals he has arising out of that assessment.(126161)

  Yvette Cooper
  As part of its regular visiting programme, the London Region Breast Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre visited the North of London Breast Screening Service on 25 November 1999. Following that visit, a number of recommendations were made to strengthen the service and improve quality. An action plan taking account of them is due to be submitted shortly to the region's quality assurance director.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date and at what location a mobile breast screening unit last operated in Brent;(126082)

  (2) what bids he has received from Brent and Harrow Health Authority for funding from the New Opportunities Fund to provide additional mobile breast screening units;(126081)

  (3) on what date and at what location a mobile breast screening unit last made a visit in the Brent and Harrow Health Authority Area;(126081)

  (4) how many mobile breast screening units serve the Brent and Harrow Health Authority area; how many of these are fully functioning; and how many of the fully-functioning mobile breast screening units serving that area have been mobile in the year 2000 to date.(126164)

  Yvette Cooper
  There is currently one mobile breast screening unit that serves the Brent and Harrow Health Authority area. This unit is fully functional and forms a part of the North of London Breast Screening Service based at Edgware Community Hospital, which is managed by the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals National Health Service Trust. The service provides breast screening for the population of Brent and Harrow, Barnet and part of West Hertfordshire Health Authorities. Following a successful bid from the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals Trust, the New Opportunities Fund notified the trust in December 1999 that it would provide the capital necessary for the replacement of this and one other unit and for the purchase of one additional trailer. The London Regional Office of the NHS Executive has agreed to meet capital costs for associated equipment.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what delays there have been in(a) assessing women who have been found to have abnormal mammograms and (b) reporting results to such women in the Brent and Harrow Health Area in the past year.(126163)
  568W
  Yvette Cooper
  The national standard is that women should be assessed within three weeks. During the period 1 April 1999 to 31 August 1999, the time taken for assessment of women in the Brent and Harrow Health Authority area whose mammograms were abnormal was:less than three weeks: 30 women (23.62 per cent.)
  four weeks: 55 women (43.30 per cent.)
  five weeks and over: 42 women (33.08 per cent.)
  Source:
  NHS Breast Screening Programme—London Quality Assurance Reference Centre.

  All women should be given an outline of the diagnosis on the day of assessment and, if any further results were to be given, would return within a week to receive them.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the spending(a) in the current financial year, (b) committed and (c) projected on breast screening, assessment and surgery of (i) Brent and Harrow Health Authority, (ii) Barnet Health Authority, (iii) Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority, (iv) Hillingdon Health Authority, (v) Camden and Islington Health Authority and (vi) Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority. [126159]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data in the form requested are not held centrally. The following figures are for individual health authorities spending in 2000–01 on breast screening services:

  £000

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  343

  Barnet Health Authority

  245

  Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority

  547

  Hillingdon Health Authority

  202

  Camden and Islington Health Authority

  292

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority

  290

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women (a) nationally and (b) in the Brent and Harrow Health Authority Area receive regular screening within the time periods recommended by his Department for the different age groups. [126165]

  Yvette Cooper
  Women in the target age group 50 to 64 are invited for breast screening every three years. Information about coverage of the target age group for 1999, the latest year available, is in the table.

  Eligible population (thousand)

  Coverage percentage1

  England

  4,261.5

  67.6

  Brent and Harrow HA

  39.2

  58.3

  1Less than three years since last test

  source:

  Form KC62

  Statistics Division SD2B

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received in the last 12 months for increasing infertility treatment provision; and if he will make a statement. [126270]
  569W
  Yvette Cooper
  We have received 251 representations for increasing infertility treatment in the last 12 months.

  We share the concerns about the postcode lottery in infertility services. We will shortly be publishing a survey into infertility provision across the country which demonstrates variations in the service. The Department will be examining ways to tackle the postcode lottery while continuing to target our priority areas of cancer and heart disease.

  Alcoholism
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was of treatment services for alcoholics and alcoholism, including in-patient and out-patient care and prevention schemes, in(a) 1970, b) 1980, (c) 1990 an (d) 1999. [126837]

  Yvette Cooper
  Estimates of the cost to the National Health Service of alcohol-related illnesses and injuries vary widely. The total cost of alcohol-related illnesses treated by hospitals is information that is not collected centrally and therefore no data are available for the periods in question.

  The most recent academic estimate of which we are aware is for the costs of alcohol misuse in the NHS in England and Wales in 1992 and is reproduced in the table.

  £million

  cost

  Inpatient costs—direct alcohol diagnosis

  40.8

  Inpatient costs—other alcohol-related diagnosis

  120.2

  General practice costs

  3.1

  Total

  164.0

  Source:

  Health Education Authority: Health Update: Alcohol (1997)—after Godfrey, C. and Hardman, G. (1994))

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence was of(a) pulmonary heart disease, (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary heart disease and (c) lung cancer in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1999; and how much it cost to treat each of those diseases in those years. [126825]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information about the incidence of pulmonary heart disease (PHD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is derived from the morbidity studies from general practice in the years 1991–92 (the latest year available), 1981–82 and 1971–72. Figures in the table represent patients in England and Wales who consulted their GP for the first time.

  per 10,000 population

  PHD

  COPD

  1971–72

  4.0

  84

  1981–82

  2.0

  122

  1991–92

  more than 0.5

  107

  In order not to place too large a burden on the National Health Service, data collected centrally on expenditure do not permit analysis at the level of detail requested.
  570W
  Office for National Statistics data shows that the number and rates per 100,000 of new cases of lung cancer in 1971, 1980, 1990 and 1996 (provisional figures) are as follows:

  Lung cancer—number and rates per 100,000 new cases, England and Wales

  1971

  1980

  1990

  19961

  Number of registrations

  Male

  25,711

  27,791

  25,037

  22,300

  Female

  5,767

  8,837

  11,567

  12,700

  Age standardised rate per 100,000 population2

  Male

  108.8

  110.0

  91.8

  77.2

  Female

  19.2

  27.2

  32.8

  35.1

  1Provisional

  2Directly age standardized using the European standard population

  Source:

  Office of National Statistics

  Information on the cost of treatment by cancer site is not available.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives were in training in NHS hospitals in the Greater London area on 1 May. [127869]

  Mr. Denham
  The responsibility for the training of midwives rests with higher education institutions rather than National Health Service trusts. Trusts do however provide clinical placements for student midwives and continuing professional development opportunities. The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive from NICE its assessment of the efficacy of beta interferon in treating persons with MS. [127860]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence plans to issue its guidance to the National Health Service in early August, unless one of the parties concerned appeals formally against the outcome of the appraisal.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to provide for young people to remain in foster care beyond the age of 18 years. [128315]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the Children Act 1989, children can be looked after until they reach the age of 18. Foster care therefore comes to an end at 18. However, it would be possible, if desired, for the young person to continue to live with his former foster parents, for example under a supported lodgings arrangement. In addition, under section 20(5) of the Children Act a council can provide accommodation in a community home for a person aged between 16 and 21 should his welfare require it.

  The Children (Leaving Care) Bill does not affect either of these provisions. However, the Bill does create significant new aftercare duties which will require councils to continue to assist care leavers, should their welfare require it, until they are 21, or beyond if they are still in an agreed programme of education or training.

  Waterhouse Report
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the Government's response to the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974, entitled "Lost in Care". [128313]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am pleased to announce that the Government's response to Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report into the tragic events in North Wales is being published today. The response is called "Learning the Lessons" and copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner claimants of income support there were in(a) the North East, (b) the City of Newcastle upon Tyne and (c) the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne and what the average payment of income support was in each of the last three years; how many claimants of the pensioners' income guarantee there now are for the same areas; and what was the average payment of income support in each of the last three years. [127973]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Minimum Income Guarantee is delivered through Income Support. It was designed to provide poorer pensioners with a higher income threshold and this April was increased in line with average earnings. The current rates are £78.45 for a single pensioner and £121.95 for a couple. The information is in the table.

  Income Support pensioners in Newcastle Central Parliamentary constituency, Newcastle City local authority, and North-east Government Office region —February 1998 to 2000

  Number

  Average weekly amount(£)

  North-east

  February 1998

  93,600

  36.19

  February 1999

  91,200

  36.58

  February 2000

  91,400

  38.71

  Newcastle Central PC

  February 1998

  3,600

  31.70

  February 1999

  3,500

  33.78

  February 2000

  3,500

  40.11

  Newcastle City LA

  February 1998

  11,500

  32.89

  February 1999

  10,900

  34.88

  February 2000

  11,400

  37.84

  Notes:

  1.Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2.Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, February 1998 to 2000

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over 60 in Morecambe and Lunesdale are eligible for the Winter Fuel Allowance. [127642]

  Angela Eagle
  In the previous winter (1999–2000), 18,928 people in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency received a winter fuel payment automatically, by virtue of their entitlement to a Social Security benefit. Actual numbers of beneficiaries for winter 2000 will not be known until later in the year (the qualifying week is 18 September 2000). In addition 10,087 claims forms/mailshots have also been issued to people in the constituency, who based on Departmental records, may be eligible for winter fuel payments for both previous winters and this coming winter as a result of the European Court judgment.

  A national and regional advertising campaign will commence early July 2000 to encourage people who have not received a claim form to contact the Winter Fuel Helpline.

  ACT (Fraud Savings)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the fraud savings resulting from automation of benefit payments at post offices. [126521)

  Mr. Rooker
  The move to Automated Credit Transfer as the normal method of payment will bring significant savings from reduced levels of fraud. The move will begin in 2003, but full savings will not be realised until 2005, when the transition from current paper based methods of payment is complete.

  A large number of fraud prevention measures are in place to manage the fraud risk relating to order books and girocheques but latest figures indicate that despite these measures around £100 million was lost in 1998–99.

  The modernisation and automation of methods of payment will virtually eliminate instrument of payment fraud.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the reports of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Southwark and Maidenhead councils; and what arrangements have been made to support local authorities in their efforts to counter Housing and Council Tax Benefit fraud through the promotion of good practice guidance. [128863]

  Mr. Rooker
  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports have been published today in respect of Southwark and Windsor and Maidenhead Councils. From these reports, and others, it is clear that many local authorities are failing to reach adequate standards of performance to secure Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration and counter the threat of fraud.

  We have already introduced a number of initiatives aimed at helping councils and I am pleased to announce another measure that will provide practical support. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has today published its second Local Authority Good Practice Guide. This Guide

  573W
  provides first hand experience from the BFI's inspection work and addresses a large range of issues. The BFI has worked closely with other Agencies as well as council staff to provide authorities with an in-depth understanding of what risks and threats they face, as well as various measures that can be taken to counter them.

  This is an important step forward in the intelligence available to authorities and one I expect will be used. The BFI's reports provide an early warning on local authority benefit performance standards and I will be monitoring the progress of authorities taking up these good practices through future inspection reports.

  Copies of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports and the Local Authority Good Practice Guide have been placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Access Funds
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the report of the Review of Access Funds and Hardship Loans will be available. [128757]

  Mr. Wicks
  Copies of the Report have today been placed in the Library of the House. My noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment is sending copies of the Executive Summary to every higher education and further education institution which administers Access Funds or Hardship Loans in England and Wales.

  The Review looked at ways in which these two schemes can be used more effectively to widen access and prevent hardship, with a particular emphasis on mature students. My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to widening access and £87 million will be available next year through the Access Bursary and Hardship Funds. Hardship Loans were introduced by this Government to provide extra targeted help for students in financial difficulty.

  The Review concluded that changes in the arrangements for offering help to students through these schemes were needed. The Report contains a total of 20 recommendations on administration of the Funds, as well as further support for mature students. Many of the recommendations addressed to the Department have already been implemented or are being put in place for 2000–01.

  A package of measures to provide additional help for mature and disadvantaged students was announced on 25 January. This package includes £17 million for non-repayable Bursaries in 2000–01 for mature students; a new Childcare Grant from 2001–02 and £10 million for Opportunity Bursaries to improve access to higher education for bright pupils from lower socio-economic groups. In addition, we have provided £2 million to help higher education institutions with the cost of administering the Bursaries for mature students in 2000–01.

  "Teachers"
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost of the magazine called "Teachers" since its inception. [128067]

  Mr. Wills
  The average cost of each issue of "Teachers" magazine is 32p per head. The magazine is subsidised by advertising which keeps this cost down.

  The magazine is around £108,000 an issue or £650,000 a year. The magazine was launched in February 1999 and is published six times a year. We have published 10 issues of the magazine so far.

  The magazine is a simple and effective way of communicating directly with teachers. It gives professional advice and provides a platform to share good practice to help raise standards.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason (a) commercial and (b) other confidentiality. [128016]

  Mr. Wills
  Of replies to parliamentary questions tabled to the Department during the period stated, five concerned matters which were commercial in confidence, two stated information was commercially confidential and one referred to a document which was commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions he has deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April.(127674)

  Mr.Wills
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]Papers were deposited in the Libraries in response to parliamentary questions on 60 occasions between the dates in question.

  New Deal
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) small, (b) medium and (c) large businesses in (i) Coventry and (ii) the UK are participating in the New Deal. [127456]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]Over 73,000 employers have signed employer agreements nationally, 355 of whom are in the Coventry area. The majority of agreements are at local level, with small and medium sized businesses. Many thousands of other employers who have not signed agreements also participate in New Deal, for example by employing New Dealers in unsubsidised jobs.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many medical students were at medical schools in the UK on 1 April. [127848]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show the number of full-time first degree medical students in the UK as at 1 December was 23,700.

  Disability Access
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to encourage employers to improve facilities for disabled access to toilets. [127599]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]I have been asked to reply.

  Under health and safety legislation employers are required to ensure that suitable and sufficient toilet facilities are provided for all employees. Therefore, any worker with a disability must have access to toilet and other welfare facilities that are suitable for his or her use. In addition, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 also places a duty on an employer who has 15 or more employees to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled employees to ensure that they are not substantially disadvantaged. This could include providing access to toilet facilities. The newly formed Disability Rights Commission will be working to help employees enforce their rights and employers to understand their duties under the Act.

  In the case of new buildings Part M of the Building Regulations covers access and facilities for disabled people and all new employment buildings are required to make reasonable provision for the sanitary arrangements of disabled people.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ICT Access
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government help is available to provide access to the internet for poorer individuals. [127631]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are taking forward a range of measures to help those on low incomes and benefits to access the internet. Excellent progress is being made in improving computer:pupil ratios to ensure that, in future, school leavers are able to use and benefit from new technologies.

  We are providing £252 million to fund around 700 ICT learning centres in England. These centres are targeted within the 2,000 most deprived local authority wards, and rural areas with significant transport and deprivation problems. They will support disadvantaged client groups with low or no ICT skills.

  50,000 additional free computer training courses will be available for jobless people across the country. We are also establishing a pilot scheme to wire up all the homes in some of our most deprived communities. And we are introducing the "Computers within Reach" pilot scheme to enable around 100,000 low-income learners and families to acquire reconditioned computers. We will continue to work with partners and the private sector to address the issue of closing the digital divide.

  Small Business Unit
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what expertise the Small Business Unit has to advise farmers on diversification; and if he will make a statement. [128052]
  576W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]The new service, which will offer tailored business advice to help farmers faced with fundamental changes in their marketplace to develop better business practices and take strategic decisions about the future of their businesses, will be delivered through the Small Business Service, working with the Business Link partnerships, other relevant organisations (eg the NFU, Lantra) and the farming industry. Farm Business Advisers delivering the service on the ground will have business expertise and knowledge of the farming industry and should be well placed to offer advice on diversification.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions he deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. [128011]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department deposited in the Library papers associated with 43 parliamentary questions tabled between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial confidentiality or other confidentiality. [127436]

  Mr. Byers
  Answers to 11 written parliamentary questions tabled between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers for reasons of commercial or other confidentiality.

  Rail Locomotives
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many diesel engines for rail locomotives were manufactured in the UK in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what action he is taking to encourage passenger and freight operators to invest in UK-manufactured engines, locomotives and rolling stock; and if he will make a statement. [127408]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  According to the Office for National Statistics, 103 rail traction diesel or semi-diesel engines were sold in 1996. No data have been published in the remaining years of the five-year period for reasons of commercial confidentiality. No data on production are available.

  UK rail passenger and freight operating companies make their own commercial decisions on the purchase and maintenance of rolling stock and locomotives. The same applies to the manufacturers of such vehicles sourcing diesel engines.

  DTI is working with the Railway Industries Association on an initiative to improve supply-chain performance within the sector.

  Engineering
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations were consulted on
  577W
  Stage 1 of the Hawley Review Group; and if he will publish the responses of those who replied to the consultation on the stage one report. [127723]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This is a matter for the Engineering Council, whose review this is.

  I understand that the Engineering Council sought views from nearly 700 organisations and individuals and is still receiving, considering and reviewing the many contributions it has had from various parts of the engineering community as part of its continuing work. Outcomes will be part of the Group's final report.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1999. [128758]

  Company

  Rank

  Duration of secondment

  (a) May 1997 to April 19981

  MTP Ltd., Springvale Business Park

  Agric. Insp., Grade 3

  1 June 1997 to 17 July 1998

  Tyrone West 2000 Ltd., Omagh Business Complex

  Agric. Insp., Grade 3

  3 October 1994 to date

  NI-CO

  Executive Office I

  September 1992 to September 1998

  NI-CO

  Executive Officer I

  April 1996 to January 2000

  NI-CO

  Deputy Principal

  October 1991 to November 1997

  NI-Co

  Grade 7

  May 1997 to September 1999

  Advanced Learning

  Grade 7

  April 1996 to June 1999

  NI Textiles & Apparel Ass

  Grade 7

  January 1998 to April 2000

  NI-CO

  Grade 7

  October 1991 to May 1997

  Growth Challenge

  Deputy Secretary

  November 1996 to date

  Laganside Corporation

  Assistant Secretary

  1 September 1997 to 3 March 1999

  Ws Atkins Consultants

  Higher Profession Technical Office

  7 July 1997 to 17 May 1998

  Price WaterhouseCoopers

  Principal Economist

  9 January 1997 to 3 January 1999

  (b) May 1998 to April 19992

  MTP Ltd., Springvale Business park

  Agric. Insp., Grade 3

  1 June 1997 to 17 July 1998

  Tyrone West 2000 Ltd., Omagh Business Complex

  Agric. Insp., Grade 3

  3 October 1994 to date

  Ballyclo Ltd., 47 Main Street, Clogher

  Agric. Insp., Group 2

  2 October 1998 to June 1999

  NI-CO

  Executive Officer 1

  September 1992 to September 1998

  NI-CO

  Executive Office 1

  April 1996 to January 2000

  NI-CO

  Grade 7

  May 1997 to September 1999

  Advanced Learning Systems

  Grade 7

  April 1996 to June 1999

  NI Textiles & Apparwel Ass

  Grade 7

  January 1998 to April 2000

  Growth Challenge

  Deputy Secretary

  November 1996 to date

  WS Atkins Consultants

  Higher Professional Technical Officer

  7 July 1997 to 17 May 1998

  Laganside Corporation

  Senior Professional Technical Officer

  25 June 1998 to date

  NI Quality Centre

  Staff Officer

  1 February 1999 to 2 April 2000

  (c) May 1999 to April 20003

  Tyrone West 2000 Ltd., Omagh Business Complex

  Agric. Insp., Group 3

  3 October 1994 to date

  Ballyclo Ltd., 47 Main Street, Clogher

  Agric. Insp., Group 2

  2 October 1998 to 1 June 1999

  NI-CO

  Executive Officer 1

  April 1996 to January 2000

  NI-CO

  Grade 7

  May 1997 to September 1999

  Advanced Learning Systems

  Grade 7

  April 1996 to June 1999

  NI Textiles & Apparel Ass

  Grade 7

  January 1998 to April 2000

  Growth Challenge

  Deputy Secretary

  Growth Challenge

  Laganside Corporation

  Senior Professional Technical Officer

  15 June 1998 to date

  NI Quality Centre

  Staff Officer

  1 February 1999 to 2 April 2000

  113 staff were Seconded during this period

  212 staff were seconded during this period

  3Nine staff were seconded during this period

  578W
  Mr. Byers
  The 26th Annual Report of the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b)May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [123419]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information is
  contained in the following table.

  RUC (Annual Report)
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make available the annual report for 1999 of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [128693]

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of the Chief Constable's annual report for 1999–2000 will be placed in the Library tomorrow. It is a general report on the carrying out by the RUC of their functions during 1999, which is submitted to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and also to me for laying before Parliament in accordance with sections 48 and 49 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions he deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. [128010]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  25 papers were deposited in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled between 19 October and 20 April.

  European Council
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for July and the major European Union events for the next six months. [128624]

  Mr. Vaz
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  European calendar: July-December 2000

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  July

  3–7

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  7–8

  Paris

  Social Affairs Council (informal)

  10–11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15–16

  Paris

  Environment Council (informal)

  17

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Tokyo

  EU/Japan Summit

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  20–21

  Lille

  Culture Council (informal)

  27

  Bangkok

  ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Ministerial

  28–29

  Bangkok

  ASEAN Post Ministerial

  28–29

  Marseilles

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (informal)

  August

  There are no Councils scheduled for this month.

  September

  2–3

  Evian

  Gymnich

  3–5

  Biarritz

  Agriculture Council (informal)

  15

  Paris

  EU/Ukraine Summit

  9–10

  Versailles

  ECOFIN Council (informal)

  18–19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumer Council

  28

  —

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (?)

  29

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  580W

  European calendar: July-December 2000

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  October

  2

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  2 (tbc)

  Paris

  EU/US Ministerial Meeting

  3

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  9–10

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  13

  Biarritz

  European Council (informal)

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN JHA Council

  19–21

  Seoul

  Europe/Asia Summit

  23

  China

  EU/China Summit

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  30 (tbc)

  Paris

  EU-Russia Summit

  November

  3 (tbc)

  Paris

  EU/Canada Ministerial

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  7

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  9

  Brussels

  Education/Youth Council

  13

  Marseilles

  Euro-Mediterranean Summit

  14

  Marseilles

  Euro-Mediterranean Summit (possible)

  16

  Brussels

  Research Council

  17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Brussels

  Culture/Audio Council

  23

  Montbeliard

  European Conference Ministerial

  23–24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  27–2

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  27–2

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Internal Market/Consumers Council

  29–30

  Gaborone

  EU/SADC Ministerial

  December

  December

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  4–5

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  4

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  5

  Brussels

  Energy and Industry Council

  7–8

  Nice

  European Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  18

  —

  EU/United States Summit

  19

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  —

  EU/Canada Summit

  20–21

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were alleged to have been committed in 1999 by persons entitled to immunity by virtue of their employment by a diplomatic mission or an international organisation. [128625]

  Mr. Vaz
  From a community of over 17,500 persons entitled to immunity, 36 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1999. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges; i.e. as offences that would in certain circumstances carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment.

  Iran
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he is proposing to travel to Iran. [128754]

  Mr. Hain
  The visit to Iran of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been postponed, owing to the busy schedule and travel commitments of Dr. Kamal Kharrazi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both he and Dr. Kharrazi are keen for the visit to proceed and will be consulting to find a mutually convenient date.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) of 11 February 2000,Official Report, columns 337–38W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128242]

  Mr. Battle
  As soon as the information can be compiled I shall write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Burma
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to discourage UK firms from promoting tourist travel to Burma. [127853]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1998 we have written to tour operator associations and to travel companies drawing attention to the views of Burmese democratic leaders that tourism to Burma is inappropriate. We cannot stop British citizens choosing Burma as a holiday destination, but we hope that any who go there are aware of the political and human rights situation. They should also be aware that they have to exchange $300 on arrival. Every one of these dollars will directly support the regime.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be made on the application for entry clearance by Shamsad Anwar, lodged at Islamabad in November 1998, reference C4694. [128255]

  Mr. Vaz
  This application, by Muena Fatima and a child, Aisha Shamshad, to join Mr. Shamsad Anwar in the UK, is the subject of ongoing inquiries, including DNA testing, at our High Commission in Islamabad. I shall be writing separately to my hon. Friend to provide the background to this application.

  Embassies
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the start-up costs were for each embassy established in Eastern European countries and the former states of the USSR since 1990. [127813]
  582W
  Mr. Hain
  It will take some time to collate the information requested. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with the information. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) technical and (b) financial assistance the Government have provided to ECOMOG in Sierra Leone. [128093]

  Mr. Hain
  We have provided around £5 million worth of practical support for the ECOMOG peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone. This support included vehicles, ration packs, boots, tents, communications equipment and the funding of helicopter hours.

  The ECOMOG peacekeeping force has now left Sierra Leone.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  R v. Weir
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking following the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Weir and the Attorney-General's Reference No. 3/1999 on 26 May. [128626]

  Mr. Straw
  I am looking at what steps need to be taken, including possible revisions to section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in each of the last five years cyclists have been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit;[127980]

  (2) how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years of cyclists for cycling the wrong way down one-way streets;[127968]

  (3) how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years of cyclists for riding on pavements;[127971]

  (4) how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years of cyclists for cycling through traffic lights at red;[127979]

  (5) how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years of cyclists for using footpaths designated for pedestrians; [127969]

  (6) how many prosecutions there have been of cyclists for failing to carry cycle lights at night in each of the last five years. [127970]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information for 1994 to 1998 taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table. Data for 1999 will not be available until the autumn.

  The fixed penalty system is also used for several pedal cycle offences, but information specific to such offences is not recorded centrally.
  583W

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences connected with pedal cycles, England and Wales 1994–98

  Offence description

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Neglect of traffic directions

  125

  155

  181

  92

  121

  Riding on footpath

  219

  314

  423

  648

  1,055

  Failing to obey signal

  19

  11

  24

  43

  19

  Lighting and reflector offences

  293

  332

  382

  412

  624

  Other pedal cycle offences

  2

  11

  16

  7

  16

  Notes:

  1. The offence of 'failing to comply with traffic light signals' may be recorded under 'Neglect of traffic directions', Failing to obey signal' or 'Other pedal cycle offence'.

  2. The offence of 'Cycling the wrong way down a one-way street' may be recorded under 'Neglect of traffic direction' or 'Other pedal cycle offence'.

  3.The offence of 'exceeding the speed limit' may be recorded under 'Neglect of traffic directions' or 'Other pedal cycle offence'.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many compensation claims for lost passports were lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each year since 1992. [127975]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of claims for lost passports lodged in the last four financial years is set out in the table. Information for earlier years is not available.

  Number

  1996–97

  30

  1997–98

  60

  1998–99

  85

  1999–2000

  94

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of settling compensation claims for lost passports in each year since 1992. [127976]

  Mrs. Roche
  The cost of settling claims for lost passports in each of the last four financial years is set out in the table. Information for previous years is not available.

  £

  1996–97

  3,000

  1997–98

  11,500

  1998–99

  12,000

  1999–2000

  20,000

  Clandestine Entrants
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices of objection lodged by hauliers allegedly transporting clandestine entrants into the UK have been(a) upheld and (b) rejected in each month since the coming into force of the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000. [127874]
  584W
  Mrs. Roche
  As at 25 June 2000, there have been 159 cases where notices of objection have been lodged against a penalty imposed in accordance with the Civil Penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Of those that have been determined, four notices of objection have been upheld and 62 rejected.

  It is not possible to break these figures down on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many haulage contractors were charged under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, in each month since April, with bringing clandestine entrants into the UK. [127978]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of haulage contractors charged under the Civil Penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in each month since April was:

  Month

  Number

  April

  72

  May

  84

  June(to 25)

  55

  Total

  211

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average fine imposed on hauliers for transporting clandestine entrants into the UK since the coming into force of the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000. [127873]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sales of Transporters) Regulations 2000 enables the imposition of a penalty of £2,000 for each clandestine entrant transported to the United Kingdom.

  As at 25 June, 211 penalty notices, with a total value of £2,336,000 had been served in relation to 1,168 clandestine entrants. Twenty-four of the penalty notices served relate to vehicles that between them carried 367 clandestine entrants, with an average penalty of £30,000 in respect of 15 entrants for each vehicle. The remaining 187 penalties relate to vehicles that between them carried 801 clandestine entrants, with an average penalty of £8,000 in respect of four entrants for each vehicle.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of fines levied on hauliers charged under the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000 in each month since April. [127872]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 25 June, the value of penalties raised on persons under the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sales of Transporters) Regulations 2000 in each month since April were as follows:

  Month

  £

  April

  848,000

  May

  838,000

  June

  650,000

  Total

  2,336,000

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made at the Council of Ministers on fixing minimum standards for tracing and confiscating assets from crime. [128258]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The European Union Heads of State and Government meeting at the special European Council at Tampere in October 1999 called for action with regard to the approximation of criminal law and procedures on money laundering, with particular reference to the tracing, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. It has been proposed that a new ad hoc working group, which has still to be set up, will carry this work forward.

  Separate discussions are taking place with regard to the application of the principle of mutual recognition to asset freezing and restraint. This will involve consideration of the minimum standards which should be applied to permit recognition of orders between member states.

  The incoming French Presidency of the European Union has made action against financial crime and money laundering one of its priorities and it is clear that this will involve some action in the area of the tracing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 471W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128249]

  Mr. Straw
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  The details of the two private sector staff seconded to my Department are as follows:

  The first secondee was from Barclay's Bank to the Planning, Finance and Performance Group from January 1997 to January 1999. The secondee was employed on various project management activities.

  The second secondee is from Price WaterhouseCoopers to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for 12 months from 4 August 1999. The secondee has had responsibility for various project management and operational activities.

  Police Secondments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are seconded on duty abroad; how many officers were seconded in each of the previous five years; and if he will make a statement. [128165]
  586W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Each police force keeps its own records and comprehensive figures are not currently held centrally. Figures are available on the number of United Kingdom police officers participating in international peace-keeping missions overseas. On 28 June 2000, the United Kingdom had 264 police officers working in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and East Timor.

  Departmental Bills
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Bills his Department has sponsored in each of the last 20 years; how many have been enacted; and if he will list the Bills and Acts per year. [128164]

  Mr. Straw
  Since the 1979–80 parliamentary session, the Home Office has sponsored 89 Bills, of which 79 have passed into law. The Acts listed are in Royal Assent order for their respective session followed by details of any unsuccessful legislation.

  1979–80 Session

  European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979

  Isle of Man Act 1979

  Police Negotiating Board Act 1980

  Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980

  Broadcasting Act 1980

  Protection of Official Information Bill

  1980–81 Session

  European Assembly Elections Act 1981

  Representation of the People Act 1981

  Criminal Attempts Act 1981

  British Nationality Act 1981

  1981–82 Session

  Fire Service College Board (Abolition) Act 1982

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

  Criminal Justice Act 1982l

  1982–83 Session

  Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983

  Marriage Act 1983

  Data Protection Bill1

  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill1

  Telecommunications Bill1

  1983–84 Session

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984

  Data Protection Act 1984

  Juries (Disqualification) Act 1984

  1984–85 Session

  Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

  Representation of the People Act 1985

  Interception of Communications Act 1985

  Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985

  1985–86 Session

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

  Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986

  Public Order Act 1986

  Shops Bill

  587W
  1986–87 Session

  Broadcasting Act 1987

  Criminal Justice Act 19872

  Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987

  Immigration (Carriers1 Liability) Act 1987

  1987–88 Session

  Immigration Act 1988

  Licensing Act 1988

  Criminal Justice Act 1988

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

  1988–89 Session

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989

  Security Service Act 1989

  Official Secrets Act 1989

  Police Officers (Central Service) Act 1989

  Representation of the People Act 1989

  1989–90 Session

  Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990

  Broadcasting Act 1990

  War Crimes Bill

  1990–91 Session

  War Crimes Act 1991

  Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991

  Criminal Justice Act 1991

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

  1991–92 Session

  Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992

  Charities Act 1992

  Prison Security Act 1992

  Asylum Bill1

  1992–93 Session

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission Act 1992

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993

  Criminal Justice Act 1993

  National Lottery Act 1993

  European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993

  1993–94 Session

  Sunday Trading Act 1994

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  1994–95 Session

  Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act 1995

  Criminal Appeal Act 1995

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995

  1995–96 Session

  Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996

  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

  Security Service Act 1996

  Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

  1996–97 Session

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997

  Police Act 1997

  Police and Firemen's Pensions Act 1997

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  Sex Offenders Act 1997

  588W
  1997–98 Session

  Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

  Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

  Data Protection Act 1998

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998

  Human Rights Act 1998

  Registration of Political Parties Act 1998

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill1

  1998–99 Session

  European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999

  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

  1999–2000 Session

  Representation of the People Act 2000

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill.

  The following Home Office Bills for the 1999–2000 session are currently before the House:

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No.2) Bill

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

  Disqualifications Bill

  Freedom of Information

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill

  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

  Terrorism Bill

  1Fell at dissolution.

  2By agreement with the Opposition Parties in both Houses, Part 1 of this Bill dealing with the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office was enacted before Dissolution: the rest of the Bill was lost.

  Police Radio Frequencies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in relation to the future of the existing police radio frequencies; what is the estimated commercial value of expected surplus frequencies; what is his current estimated timescale for the changes to the use of radio frequencies; and if he will make a statement. [128166]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The majority of the radio frequencies currently used by the police service, in England and Wales, will be returned to the central Government pool once the Public Safety Radio Communications service (PSRCS) is fully operational and the frequencies are no longer required. This is expected to occur in 2005.

  The spectrum returned will be used to assist in re-organising the civil spectrum to improve its quality by aligning it with usage in Europe. This re-alignment will take many years and we do not expect that any parts of the spectrum currently used by the Home Office will be available for sale or for further allocation until this programme has been completed.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to alter the formula for funding police forces in England and Wales;[126424]
  589W
  (2) what plans he has to introduce a sparsity factor into the process of allocating funds to rural police forces; [126426]

  (3) if it is his policy to accept the findings of the ORH study into police funding in respect of the additional costs of policing sparsely populated rural areas; [126423]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities plan ahead. In July 1998, the Government announced a three-year freeze on changes to Standard Spending Assessment funding formulae pending the wide ranging review of the revenue support grant system across local government. In view of the moratorium, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that it would not be appropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. That position remains unchanged.

  The fundings of the Operational Research in Health (ORH) report on policing areas of rural sparsity were considered by a Home Office chaired Working Group, which includes representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities. That report was placed in the Library. Implementing the findings of the report would have meant the redistribution of around £30 million of funding almost entirely from the metropolitan forces to shire forces where call response times are longer. There was no agreement in the working group about the best way to proceed.

  However, the opportunity has now arisen as a result of additional funds being made available through the budget, for the Government to recognise the special needs of rural policing. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has therefore agreed to make £15 million available for the remainder of this year to enhance the policing service in rural areas at no cost to the metropolitan forces. Funding for future years will be considered as part of the spending review 2000 process.

TREASURY

  Spectrum Auction
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account under resource accounting rules is to be taken of the right of third generation mobile spectrum licensees to amortise the cost of their licences from the amount of their future taxable profits and of the consequential future reduction in tax revenue. [128071]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]Tax relief for the amortisation of third generation spectrum licence costs will reduce corporation tax yields over the lives of the licences. Currently, the resource accounting rules apply only to departmental resource accounts and not to corporation tax. However, subject to the passing of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, the same accounting principles will apply in due course to the Whole of Government Accounts, which will include corporation tax revenue.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total cost of administering the Child Tax Credit in financial year 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [128167]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The administration of the children's tax credit during the financial year 2001–02 will be part of the Inland Revenue's routine work and will not be separately identified in running costs.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people in Hampstead and Highgate benefit from the(a) child care tax credit, (b) Sure Start maternity grant and (c) New Deal for Lone Parents; [127851]

  (2) how many families in Hampstead and Highgate receive the Working Families tax Credit; and how many will benefit from changes allowing claims to be made immediately after the birth of a child;[127911]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For a provisional estimate of the number of recipients of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) in Hampstead and Highgate at the end of April 2000, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given on 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 537W to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).

  It is estimated that, in a full year, up to 70,000 families could benefit from the reforms to WFTC for mothers of new children announced in this year's Budget. No estimate is available of the number of these in Hampstead and Highgate.

  About 10 per cent. of awards of Working Families Tax Credit include a child care tax credit. We are unable to provide a reliable estimate of the number of awards with a child care tax credit in Hampstead and Highgate.

  The Sure Start maternity grant has been claimable from 27 March 2000 for babies due on or after 11 June and is gradually replacing the social fund maternity payment. I understand from the Department of Social Security (DSS) that figures are not available by constituency.

  I understand from the Department for Social Security that, since October 1998, 40 lone parents in Hampstead and Highgate have found employment as a consequence of the New Deal for Lone Parents, and 21 lone parents have started Training and Education. 174 lone parents have joined the programme.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in(a) Coventry, South, (b) the West Midlands region and (c) nationally (i) receive the Working Families Tax Credit and (ii) will benefit from the changes allowing families to make a claim as soon as a baby is born. [127252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]The number of families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of April 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,053,000, of which 107,000 were in the West Midlands region.
  591W
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 28 June 2000, Official Report, column 537W for the number of WFTC awards in Coventry, South.

  It is estimated that, in a full year, up to 70,000 families could benefit from the reforms to WFTC for mothers of new children announced in this year's Budget. No estimates are available of the number of these in Coventry, South or the West Midlands region.

  Car Scheme Rates
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will authorise a review of the Inland Revenue's fixed profit car scheme rates which were last reviewed in 1997, with special reference to petrol prices for motorists; [128038]

  (2) if he will place in the Library details of the methodology used by the Inland Revenue in calculating the motor mileage rates used in the fixed profit car scheme. [128035]

  Mr. Timms
  Under the current system, authorised mileage rates are calculated by reference to typical tax allowable motoring costs for cars with different engine sizes. The costs include both running costs (petrol, oil, tyres, repairs, replacements and servicing) and standing costs (VED, insurance, depreciation and subscriptions).

  The Budget Day 2000 press release REV6 B—"Protecting the environment: reform of company car taxation" announced a review of the authorised mileage rates system which is now under way. The announcement stated that:
  The Inland Revenue will be considering how the authorised mileage rates for drivers who use their own cars for business journeys (which underpin the Inland Revenue's fixed profit car scheme) might be improved, on a revenue neutral basis, to send better environmental signals.
  The level and structure of the authorised mileage rates will be considered in the course of the review. Comments are welcome and should be sent by 30 September 2000 to:
  Kim Linton
  Personal Tax Division
  Room 81, New Wing
  Somerset House
  Strand
  London, WC2R 1LB
  e-mail: Kim.Linton@ir.gsi.gov.uk

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason(a) commercial and (b) other confidentiality. [128015]

  Mr. Timms
  Five and eight respectively, either wholly or in part, of the 1,479 answers given.

  Hydro-electric Schemes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what criteria(a) existing and (b) proposed hydroelectric schemes will have to meet in order to be eligible for exemption from the climate change levy; [127150]

  (2) if electricity generated by hydro-electric schemes constructed under the non-fossil fuel obligation arrangements will be exempt from the climate change levy; [127149]

  (3) if additional renewable energy generating capacity created by the refurbishment and upgrade of existing hydro-electric schemes in Scotland will be exempt from the climate change levy; [127151]

  (4) if additional renewable energy generating capacity created by the construction of new hydro-electric schemes will be exempt from the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [127152]

  Mr. Timms
  Electricity generated from hydro-electric installations producing more than 10 MW will be subject to the climate change levy under the normal rules. Electricity from hydro-electric installations producing less than 10 MW will be exempt from the climate change levy if supplied under an approved contract.

  This principle applies whether the installations concerned are new, proposed, refurbished, upgraded or constructed under the non-fossil fuels obligation arrangements.

  Government Audit
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on appointing members to the steering group for the review of the audit and accountability arrangements for central Government. [128798]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that the following persons have so far agreed to serve on the Steering Group:Sir John Bourn, KCB, Comptroller and Auditor General
  Sir Brian Carsberg, Chairman, International Accounting Standards Committee
  Right hon. David Davis MP, Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons
  Andrew Likierman, Director, Financial Management Reporting and Audit Directorate, HM Treasury
  lain Plaistowe, Chairman, Auditing Practices Board
  David Rendel MP, Member, Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry
  Right hon. Andrew Smith MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
  Rosemary Thorne, Group Finance Director, Bradford and Bingley Building Society
  Professor Sir David Tweedie, Chairman, Accounting Standards Board
  Right hon. Alan Williams MP, Member, Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons.

  The remaining appointments to the Steering Group will be announced shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  OSCE
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes there are in the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe. [128755]

  The Prime Minister
  The right hon. and noble Lord Jopling, currently a substitute member is to become a full representative replacing the noble Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. The noble Earl of Northesk is to become a substitute member of the delegation.

DEFENCE

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff employed at the DERA base at West Freugh, Wigtownshire are employed by (a) DERA, (b) the MOD, (c) SERCO and (d) other non-military companies and organisations. [127870]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Alasdair Morgan, dated 29 June 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about the number of staff employed at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range at West Freugh since such matters relate to the operation of the range.
  A total of some 200 staff are currently employed at DERA West Freugh. This comprises 26 DERA staff, 23 MOD, 131 SERCO and 16 others.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 34W, on Northern Ireland, under what section of Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Government Information he based his reply. [128026]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information was withheld under Section a of Exemption 1—information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence.

  Anglo-Irish Meeting
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2000, Official Report, column 36W, under which section of Exemption 14 his decision to withhold information was based. [128022]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the individual referred to in my answer of 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 36W were withheld under Exemption 14(a) (information supplied in confidence by a person who was not under any legal obligation to supply it and who has not consented to its disclosure), as well as under Exemption 4(f) (information whose disclosure could identify the source
  594W
  of information or assistance in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes) and Exemption 12 (privacy of an individual).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply substantively to the question from the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ref. 122262). [126599]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 408W.

  Battle of Britain
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what initiatives his Department is taking this year, at which (a) stations and (b) establishments, to mark the commemoration by the Royal Air Force of the sixtieth anniversary of the Battle of Britain. [127735]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF is very conscious that the year 2000 marks the 60th Anniversary year of the Battle of Britain and the RAF is participating in many events nationwide throughout the year to commemorate the Battle.

  A Battle of Britain Service and Reception at Westminster Abbey on 17 September is the main official commemoration of the campaign. The Westminster Abbey service is held annually in September each year, but is enhanced on this occasion in recognition both that it is the 60th Anniversary and that it is likely to be the last major commemorative event of the Battle that many of the participants will be able to attend. Members of the Government, High Commissioners, the Air Force Board and representatives of the aviation industry attend each year and, in view of the importance of this particular anniversary, members of the Royal Family have also been invited.

  A Battle of Britain Dinner at RAF Bentley Prior is being hosted on 15 September by the Air Force Board for members of the Battle of Britain Fighter Association, ground crew and plotters. It is planned that Service personnel, aviation industry representatives and others with a connection to the Battle will attend. Members of the Royal Family and Defence Ministers will also be invited.

  The Battle of Britain Memorial Trust Day will be held on 9 July. The Battle of Britain Memorial Trust is arranging a ceremony at Capel le Ferne on the cliffs of Dover at the site of the Trust memorial to commemorate the Battle. The Lord Lieutenant of Kent will preside over the event, which will be fully supported by the RAF, with aircrew from the 13 extant Battle of Britain Squadrons, a flypast by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, Bands of the RAF Regiment and Air Training Corps cadets. Members of the RauxAF will also be supporting the event. A short memorial service will be conducted by the Chaplain in Chief (RAF).

  Finally, the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is in high demand this year and will be representing the RAF at events throughout the UK and displaying for some of our WWII allies in Europe. The Battle of Britain Memorial

  595W
  Flight have or will be taking part in some 41 events with a Battle of Britain 60th Anniversary theme during the period April-September.

  Event

  Date

  60th Anniversary of Battle of Britain—Kenley, Surrey

  3–4 June

  Battle of Britain Memorial—Purley Way, Croydon

  3–4 June

  RAF Bentley Priory Battle of Britain Cocktail Party

  16 June

  Battle of Britain Service—St. Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh

  17 June

  RAF Cosford Air Show—includes Battle of Britain theme

  18 June

  RAF Waddington Air Day—includes Battle of Britain theme

  24–25 June

  Battle of Britain Memorial Day—Capel le Ferne, Kent

  9 July

  Royal International Air Tattoo—includes Battle of Britain theme

  21–23 July

  Doncaster's 60th Anniversary of Battle of Britain

  5–6 August

  60th Anniversary of Battle of Britain—Kenley, Surrey

  19–20 August

  RAFA Battle of Britain Concert

  1–2 September

  RAFA Battle of Britain Service—York

  3 September

  Propeller Service 60th Anniversary of Battle of Britain—Lincolnshire

  3 September

  60th Anniversary of Battle of Britain—Yorkshire

  3 September

  Battle of Britain Pilots Memorial Garden Annual Service—Sussex

  3 September

  DERA Fort Halstead Officer's Mess Battle of Britain Night Dinner

  7 September

  Battle of Britain Cocktail Party—RAF Northolt

  7 September

  Battle of Britain Cocktail Party—Keogh Barracks, Aldershot

  7 September

  Battle of Britain Annual Reception—RAF St. Athan

  8 September

  Battle of Britain Anniversary Event—Stapleford Aerodrome

  9 September

  RAF Thatcham Battle of Britain Reception and Dinner

  13 September

  Newark battle of Britain Commemoration Service and Parade

  10 September

  RAFA Skipton Battle of Britain Parade

  10 September

  Basilique de Sacre Coeur—Belgium

  10 September

  60th Anniversary of Battle of Britain—RAF Northolt (also 85th of RAF Northolt and 75th of 600 Sqn)

  13 September

  HQ Strike Command Battle of Britain Night

  14 September

  Northwood Officer's Mess Battle of Britain Dining in Night

  14 September

  Battle of Britain Drinks—Bracknell, Berks

  14 September

  RAFA Mount Batten Battle of Britain 60th Anniversary Air Salute—Plymouth

  15–17 September

  Battle of Britain Commemoration—Plymouth

  15 September

  Battle of Britain Ceremony, Paris

  15 September

  RAF Fylingdales Battle of Britain Fly Past—N. Yorkshire

  15 September

  RAF Bentley Priory Battle of Britain Dining in Night

  15 September

  Battle of Britain Tribute—Manston

  15 September

  RAF Leeming Battle of Britain Guest Night

  15 September

  Central Band of RAF—public concert outside Westminster Abbey with Battle of Britain theme

  16 September

  RAF Leuchars Battle of Britain International Airshow

  16 September

  Annual Wreathlaying Ceremony on Embankment preceding Abbey Service

  17 September

  Annual Battle of Britain Service in Westminster Abbey plus Air Force Board Reception for Veterans

  17 September

  Songs of Praise RAF Halton—BBC TV (TBC)

  17 September

  Battle of Britain 60th Anniversary Service—St. Clement Danes' (Central Church of the RAF)

  17 September

  Battle of Britain Commemoration—Waltham

  17 September

  Battle of Britain Wings Appeal—Falkirk

  17 September

  Battle of Britain Remembrance Day—Hadleigh Suffolk

  17 September

  Biggin Hill Battle of Britain Day

  17 September

  RAFA Sheringham Branch Battle of Britain Ceremony—Norfolk

  17 September

  RAF Honington Battle of Britain Dinner

  22 September

  In addition, most RAF stations will hold a Battle of Britain Guest Night to celebrate success in the Battle, with invitations to veterans who live locally. Also, most RAF stations hold a Battle of Britain Cocktail Party to host local dignitaries during September.

  Medical Personnel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of fully trained, dedicated medical personnel deployed in-theatre as a proportion of the total armed forces personnel deployed in-theatre at the time of highest United Kingdom deployment during conflicts in(a) the Falklands, (b) the Gulf, (c) Kosovo and (d) Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [127472]
  596W
  The following table lists details of all the events the RAF is supporting which will in part commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain:

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

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the optimum in-theatre deployment of fully trained, dedicated medical personnel as a proportion of total armed forces personnel; what factors he takes into account in deciding this policy; and if he will make a statement. [127471]

  Dr. Moonie
  The optimal quantity and configuration of medical support is calculated individually for each operational deployment to ensure that the support is tailored to the particular task in hand. Factors taken into account in reaching a decision on the level of medical support required include the type of operation; the force size and composition; military threat and risk assessments;
  597W
  possible casualty rates; risk of disease and other non battle injuries; local environmental factors, such as climate and water availability and quality; and the availability of medical resources provided by allies.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) of 8 February 2000,Official Report, columns 109–10W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128238]

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

  Sierra Leone
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government will respond to requests for arms and ammunition from the Government of Sierra Leone. [128694]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have made it clear that they will consider requests for assistance from the Government of Sierra Leone. Following a request for ammunition to meet urgent operational needs, therefore, Ministers have agreed that the Government will supply five million rounds of 7.62mm rifle ammunition and four thousand rounds of 81mm mortar ammunition, which are available as surplus from MOD stocks. This will be transported to Sierra Leone subject to the Government of Sierra Leone securing formal agreement from the ECOWAS Secretariat that this ammunition can be imported as an exception to their Small Arms Moratorium. In accordance with UNSCR 1171 (1998), this shipment will be notified to the UN Sanctions Committee. The Government have received confirmation from President Kabbah that the ammunition will be used only by regular Sierra Leone Army soldiers, in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights standards, and not by child soldiers. The Government remain prepared to consider further requests for assistance from the Government of Sierra Leone.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Trade and Industry concerning the Defence Diversification Agency. [128092]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials are in regular contact with the DTI on this subject.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the annual report of the Defence Diversification Agency will be published. [128094]

  Dr. Moonie
  The activities of the Defence Diversification Agency since its establishment last year will be reported on in this year's Annual Report of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, of which the Defence Diversification Agency forms a part. We expect that that report will be laid before Parliament next month.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Management
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a risk-based system for the inspection of licensed waste management sites; and if he will make a statement. [128760]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the publication last year of the consultation paper on "Operator Pollution Risk Appraisal (OPRA) for waste," I am issuing revised guidance to the Environment Agency to enable the introduction of a risk-based system for the inspection of sites licensed under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  We must ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health. The site inspections which the Agency carries out are a vital part of this process. The new system will further improve standards by targeting inspections on those sites where they are most needed and making more effective use of the Agency's waste inspection resources.

  It will also provide site licence holders with a risk management system which enables them to identify the environmental risks associated with their site and the operations they carry out; and to assess and improve the quality of their performance in managing those operations and their environmental risks. A copy of the revised guidance, which I am issuing to the Agency under section 35(8) of the 1990 Act, is being placed in the Library of the House.

  GLA Election
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Greater London returning officer on the election of the Mayor and Assembly for London; and if he will make a statement. [128464]

  Mr. Hill
  I have now had advice from the Greater London Returning Officer (GLRO) about the first election of the Mayor and Assembly for London. There were a number of innovations at the election designed to make voting more convenient and to speed up the counting process. These included electronic counting, early voting, opening polling stations an hour earlier than usual and sending a leaflet to every elector containing an election address from each candidate contesting the Mayoral election.

  Two issues have emerged in relation to the count: the speed of the count and the number of votes classified as "rejected".

  Although the count took a few hours longer than originally expected, the GLRO has stressed that Ministers can be satisfied that the first use of electronic counting in an election of this size and complexity went well. There were some technical problems with some scanning machines on the night, but a manual count would have taken many more days to complete. In all other respects the electronic counting system worked very well and fully in line with expectations.
  599W
  A number of other factors also contributed to the slower than expected count. For example, there were a larger than expected number of ballot papers out-sorted by the scanning machines for manual checking, before they were entered into the system. It is also the case that as this was the first time that staff had used an electronic counting system in an election, they quite rightly took time to make sure that the new procedures were followed properly. These factors inevitably slow things up.

  The other issue was the larger than expected number of electors who chose not to cast a vote in one or more of the elections. Each elector had four opportunities to vote—first choice for Mayor, second choice for Mayor, constituency assembly member and London Assembly Member—and each is recorded separately. If an elector chooses not to vote in any of the four ballots—as they have every right to do—this is recorded as a "rejected" vote even though the ballot paper was left blank. For example, if a voter selects a first choice for Mayor but not a second choice, and does not vote at all in the two Assembly elections, the system would record one valid vote and three "rejected" votes.

  Over 6.5 million votes were cast by about 1.75 million electors. Around 0.5 million votes were recorded as "rejected". These were made up of multiple votes (where the voter had voted more than once in a column), papers where marks identified the voter, blanks where no vote had been cast and uncertain votes, where even after manual checking the voter's intention was still not clear.

  The majority of votes classified as "rejected" simply record the fact that many electors chose not to use all the four votes at their disposal. Almost 300,000 people did not use their second preference vote for the Mayor, although they did give a first preference. About 130,000 did not cast vote for a constituency assembly member and about 70,000 did not cast a vote for a London assembly member. About 1 per cent. of ballot papers were "rejected" because they were either marked with multiple votes or had marks that identified the voter. This proportion is in line with other elections.

  Over 3 per cent. of voters took advantage of early voting. Almost all of them welcomed the opportunity to vote early and said they would use it again if it is available. Just under half of those who used the facility said that they would not have voted on polling day.

  About 3 per cent. of voters also took advantage of the extended polling hours on polling day and voted between 7am and 8am on polling day. In some polling stations 11 per cent. of voters voted in the first hour. Most were on their way to work and 20 per cent. said that they would not have been able to vote at another time on the day. More people preferred the polls to open an extra hour in the morning rather than later in the evening.

  A leaflet containing election addresses for all 11 mayoral candidates was produced and delivered to every elector in London, as required by law.

  Disability Access
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking in respect of the recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force in "From Exclusion to Inclusion" that 600W
  his Department should establish a statutory group on improving access to the built environment for disabled people. [128695]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I accept the thinking behind the Task Force's recommendation. I have therefore asked the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) to establish a working group to advise Government on improving access to the built environment for disabled people. DPTAC has agreed to do so. This new role for the Committee will be in addition to its statutory functions in respect of the transport needs of disabled people. There will be no immediate amendment to those statutory functions.

  Easy access to buildings—and facilities within buildings—are basic civil rights which are sometimes denied to people with disabilities. I will be looking to the new group to tell me how Government and industry can make improvements in this area.

  Outdoor Advertisement Control
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to proceed in the light of the response to the "Outdoor Advertisement Control" consultation paper published in July 1999. [128759]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am pleased by the positive reaction to the proposals in this consultation paper. The proposals received widespread support and there were also a number of helpful suggestions for improving individual proposals which are reflected in our final conclusions. I am grateful to all those who took the trouble to comment. Their views have been given careful consideration in deciding how to proceed.

  I am putting in the Library of the House a list of our proposals, showing the changes made following consultation. The Department is now preparing the necessary statutory instruments and guidance to implement the changes.

  Crop Contamination
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the information he provided to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment concerning the GM contamination of Advanta Seeds UK's Hyola Spring Oilseed when he requested their advice. [124324]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today placed in the House Library a copy of the information about the Advanta seeds issue sent to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment by my Department in order to seek their advice on this potential risk to human health and the environment.

  The original document contained, for members' information only, a brief summary of DETR's legal opinion at that time. This has been omitted in light of possible legal proceedings.

  Fairground Inspectors
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  601W
  geographical area each fully-qualified and dedicated fairground inspector employed by the Health and Safety Executive is expected to cover; and how many fairs each inspector is responsible for. [127559]

  Mr.Meacher
  HSE inspectors work from 20 main offices of HSE and a number of outstationed offices throughout Great Britain. They are not solely concerned with fairground work. They will cover other industries such as food, drink and leisure activities. It is not possible to calculate how many fairs are covered by each inspector because there are wide regional variations of the number of fairs held.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dedicated and fully qualified fairground inspectors are employed by the Health and Safety Executive. [127565]

  Mr. Meacher
  Inspectors belonging to HSE's Consumer Services Groups are based in over 20 locations in Great Britain. They visit fairground dutyholders as well as dutyholders in other industries such as food, drink and leisure activities.

  Inspectors undertaking health and safety inspections of fairgrounds are fully qualified HSE inspectors who receive specific guidance and training on fairground inspection.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many inspections of fairgrounds were carried out by fully-qualified staff employed by the Health and Safety Executive in 1999; and how many of those inspections were(a) proactive and (b) reactive. [127566]

  Mr. Meacher
  Between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000, HSE inspectors made 2,200 contacts with fairground and amusement parks dutyholders. Of these contacts 1,503 were planned proactive contacts and 697 were specifically concerned with reactive contacts or visits.

  Motorway Hard Shoulders
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria his Department uses when allowing motorway hard shoulders to be used as traffic lanes. [127397]

  Mr. Hill
  Trunk road investment proposals are appraised against the criteria—environmental impact, safety, economy, accessibility and integration—as required by the New Approach To Appraisal.

  To date, only a few short sections of hard shoulder have been converted to provide additional capacity at junctions. This technique is used when queueing traffic on the slip road extends back towards the main carriageway, compromises safety and/or disrupts throughput on the main carriageway.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the ways in which other EU member states tackle problems of fuel poverty. [127574]
  602W
  Mr. Meacher
  Work by National Energy Action and others indicate that fuel poverty is not widely recognised in other member states of the European Union, with the exception of Ireland.

  Fuel poverty is caused mainly by a combination of low income and poor energy efficiency in homes. The links between temperature and winter mortality is strong and typically 30,000 more people die in winter in the UK than would be expected given the average death rate for the year. Although this excess mortality is caused by both exposure to outdoor conditions as well as cold homes, it is much higher in the UK than in other areas, such as Scandinavia, where winter outdoor conditions are more severe but homes are more energy efficient.

  The Government believe it is unacceptable for households, particularly those most vulnerable to cold-related ill health—the old, disabled and children—not to be able to afford the heat they need to keep warm. The Inter-ministerial Group on fuel poverty is currently developing a fuel poverty strategy for publication in the autumn, that sets out objectives and the policies and targets to achieve them. It is likely that the strategy will cover both measures to tackle low incomes as well as improvements in energy efficiency of homes.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make energy efficiency the priority in his policy on the environmental performance of refrigeration and air-conditioning technology; and if he will make a statement. [127699]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are consulting on proposals to amend the energy efficiency requirements of the Building Regulations. The proposed changes would introduce energy performance requirements for air conditioning equipment and include guidance to encourage the use of energy efficient components in well-designed systems. The consultation period ends on 29 September.

  We are also concerned that HFC emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment are forecast to grow strongly in the near future. This trend is unsustainable and action needs to be taken to limit the projected growth. That is why we have given a clear signal to industry and users to look closely at alternative refrigerants and to select those that are more environmentally acceptable where they do exist. Safety, technical feasibility and cost effectiveness should be taken into account before investment decisions are taken. Where HFCs are used we intend to discuss with industry and users what measures could be taken to minimise emissions.

  M27
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when a decision will be made on the resurfacing of the M27 with a quieter surface; and if he will make a statement. [127646]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.
  603W
  Letter from Peter Nutt to Sandra Gidley, dated 29 June 2000:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about when a decision will be made on resurfacing the M27 with a quieter surface.
  I am pleased to tell you that, within your constituency, resurfacing of both carriageways of the M27 between Junctions 2 and 4 will begin in spring 2001. The work will take approximately six months as there is a need for major reconstruction work, drainage repairs, safety fencing work and minor works to structures. I can confirm that the concrete surface will be replaced with a quieter thin surfacing which will reduce the road noise at nearby properties. In addition, Junctions 4–5 were resurfaced at the beginning of this year and also received a low noise surfacing treatment.
  I will ensure that you are provided with more detailed information nearer the start date for the Junction 2–4 work.

  Council Tax
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from mobile home owners and their organisations about the banding of properties for council tax purposes. [127648]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have received three representations in the last three months, none of which were from organisations representing mobile home owners.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change(a) the number of council tax bands and (b) the ratio of payment rates between different bands of property regarding council tax liability. [127647]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As we made clear in our 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", we do not propose to make any major changes to the council tax during the course of this Parliament.

  CFC Gases
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure that discarded domestic refrigeration appliances producing CFC gases are collected in Cumbria. [127806]

  Mr. Mullin
  Waste collection authorities have a duty under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to collect household waste, including items such as refrigerators if requested. They also have a duty to collect waste which is fly-tipped, under section 59 of the Act. Similarly, waste disposal authorities have a duty to provide civic amenity sites, under section 51(1)(b) at which residents may deposit, for example, discarded refrigerators and that such sites are situated:within the area of the authority or so as to be reasonably accessible to persons resident in its area
  (section 51(2)(a)). Furthermore, local authorities have a "duty of care" (section 34(1)(b)) covering the receipt and holding of such waste, including CFCs contained within, whereby they must ensure that:
  all measures are taken as are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent the escape of the waste from their control.

  EU Funding
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the wards in Morecambe and Lunesdale eligible for(a) Single Regeneration Budget funding, (b) Objective 2 European funding and (c) regional selective assistance. [127636]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:(a) Single Regeneration Budget Eligibility
  Local regeneration partnerships may include any of the wards in Morecambe and Lunesdale in a bid for Single Regeneration Budget funding.
  (b) Objective 2 funding eligibility
  New Objective 2 Area, 2000–06
  Wards:

  Alexandra

  Heysham North

  Heysham Central

  Heysham South

  Overton

  Transitional Areas (former Objective 5b areas)

  Wards:

  Arkholme

  Halton-with-Aughton

  Kellet

  (c)Regional Selective Assistance (Tier2)—proposed eligibility

  Wards:

  Alexanddra

  Harbour

  Heysham North

  Heysham Central

  Heysham South

  Overton

  Poulton

  Skerton Central

  Skerton East

  Skerton West

  Torrisholme

  Victoria.

  Air Services (South-West)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Air Link Strategy for the South-West has not been published; and when it will be. [127879]

  Mr. Mullin
  The South-West Regional Air Service Study has reported as one of six regional studies which form the first part of a two-stage process leading to the publication of a series of Regional Consultation documents. The original Regional Air Services Studies are currently being co-ordinated and audited for consistency as part of the Regional Air Services Co-ordination (RASCO) Study.

  Once that work has been completed, six Regional Consultation documents, which will include a summary of the study findings for their respective region, will be published as part of a major public consultation exercise informing the preparation of the Air Transport White Paper.

  Northfield Relief Road
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in respect of the Birmingham Northfield regeneration/relief road plan. [127961]

  Mr. Hill
  Birmingham City Council submitted an Outline Business Case for a PFI scheme for the regeneration of Northfield, including a new relief road, in September 1999. The City Council also submitted the Relief Road as a major scheme bid in their Provisional Local Transport Plan in July 1999. We deferred consideration of the Relief Road bid because of the absence of a qualified assessment of the costs and benefits of the scheme. At a meeting with the City Council on 5 April 2000, officials made clear to the Council that the

  Casualties in accidents between pedal cycles and pedestrians: GB 1994–98

  Severity of casualty

  Fatal1

  Serious2

  Slight3

  Total

  Pedestrian

  Cyclist

  Pedestrian

  Cyclist

  Pedestrian

  Cyclist

  Pedestrian

  Cyclist

  1994

  3

  0

  95

  14

  242

  68

  340

  82

  1995

  4

  1

  89

  19

  266

  78

  359

  98

  1996

  2

  1

  88

  15

  230

  68

  320

  84

  1997

  3

  3

  88

  14

  253

  76

  344

  93

  1998

  2

  0

  71

  14

  201

  53

  274

  67

  1Fatal injury: Human casualties who sustained injuries which caused death less than 30 days after the accident (excluding confirmed suicides)

  2Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in-patient', or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.

  3Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain, bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.

  Note:

  statistics shown in the table are for single vehicle accidents involving one or more pedestrians.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason that the information is(a) not held centrally, (b) not held in the form requested and (c) not available. [128013]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 June 2000,Official Report, columns 311–12W. Of the 36 occasions my Department cited disproportionate cost as the reason for not providing substantive answers, we did so because (a) in 14 cases the information was not held centrally, (b) in 16 cases the information was not held in the form requested and (c) in six cases the information was not available.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation there was with local authorities before selection of the locations for field trials of genetically modified crops; and if he will make a statement. [128045]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]Although there is no specific request for such consultation in the legislation, we did hold a series of 12 meetings focused on local authority areas around groups of sites, in order to explain the purpose of the field study experiments to answer local concerns.606W
  relief road would need to be justified on its transport merits, and submitted as part of the West Midlands Full Local Transport Plan in July 2000.

  Road Accidents (Cyclists and Pedestrians)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have received hospital treatment in each of the last five years following collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. [127963]

  Mr. Hill
  No information is available on the number of people who receive medical treatment following collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. However, the table shows the number of casualties in this type of accident by injury severity.

  Railways (Investment)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the level of investment in the railways; and if he will make a statement. [128133]

  Mr. Hill
  Our plans for future investment in the railways are subject to the outcome of the Spending Review 2000, and will be detailed in our forthcoming Ten Year Plan for Transport. We will set out in our Ten Year Plan for Transport a programme of measures for delivering at least a 75 per cent. increase in rail freight movements and a 50 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with BAA concerning the effect of a fifth terminal at Heathrow on his carbon dioxide emission reduction target. [127897]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]None. It would not be appropriate to hold such discussions because the planning application for a fifth terminal was the subject of a Public Inquiry and the Secretary of State awaits the Inspector's report. Carbon dioxide issues were considered during the Inquiry and he will take these into account as part of the decision making process.

  Global Warming
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effects of global warming in the next 50 years on the(a) area of agricultural land that may be lost and (b) number of people displaced by loss of land in the United Kingdom. [127655]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The land below high tide level is already vulnerable to flooding and depends on flood and coastal defences. These low lying areas form around 5 per cent. of the land area of England, including a similar proportion of the developed urban land, and over 50 per cent. of the highest grade agricultural land.

  This land could be at increased risk through climate change. We need to respond to the challenge primarily by ensuring that, where necessary and appropriate, existing defences are replaced and upgraded. Since 1989, MAFF has issued flood and coastal defence operating authorities with allowances for sea level rise for them to take into account when designing new or upgraded schemes; these allowances reflect both climate change and long term geological land movement.

  However, the response to climate change cannot be automatically to surround Britain in concrete by building ever higher sea defences. Sustainability is a key criterion and we cannot commit future generations to unsustainable defence options. In assessing defence options the operating authorities need to consider alternative approaches including "managed realignment" of defences to reduce such pressure on the inter-tidal area, compensate for habitat losses and provide more sustainable long term lines of coastal defence. Decisions on such matters will need to be made by the operating authorities over the coming years.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 132W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128251]

  Mr. Lock
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur, all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  The secondment to the Law Commission was of a solicitor to work on a company law reform project; and the secondee from ICL provided an external perspective on information systems/information technology strategy work in the LCD and on the development of the Department's Year 2000 programme.

WALES

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards post offices and its impact on Wales. [128580]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday announced the publication of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report commissioned by the Prime Minister, "Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network", and the Government's response to this (Vol. 352, columns 907–11). The Government fully accept the PIU's 24 recommendations and will work in partnership with the Post Office and the devolved Administrations to build a bright future for a modernised network, including more than 1,500 post offices in Wales.

  My right hon. Friend outlined today how the Government will act to protect a nationwide network of post offices:
  We are requiring the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of post offices;
  We have made the budgetary provision to back up this commitment where necessary, on the basis of powers taken in the Postal Services Bill to give subsidies;
  We will provide funding to improve post offices in deprived urban areas and sustain post offices and retail facilities in deprived urban areas. The National Assembly for Wales will receive a share of new funding available in England and will be responsible for deciding whether it wishes to implement similar proposals in the urban post offices in Wales;
  We will work with the Post Office and the devolved Administrations on pilot schemes to use post offices as sites for information on Government services and internet access learning points;
  We want the Post Office to set up a Universal bank to help address the problems of financial exclusion. This will be the vehicle for delivering our pledge that people will still be able to get their benefits in cash at the Post Office after the switch to Automated Credit Transfer;
  £480 million has already been invested in HORIZON, a project to automate the entire Post Office network by next spring.

  The Government want the Post Office to work creatively to seize new lines of business suggested in the PIU report, such as the Universal bank, one-stop shops for Government information and transactions and the opportunities offered by e-commerce, so the network is not dependent on subsidy. However, Government funding will be available to support our proposals as necessary and we have identified funding in the current spending review. Precise figures will be announced in July as part of the Spending Review.

  Most of these proposals are for the UK Government to take forward with the Post Office, although some will be for the Assembly to decide on. In areas which fall within the Assembly's policy remit, Wales will receive a share of any new funding and it will be for the Assembly to decide how it uses that money. I am in close contact with the First Secretary on this matter and the Assembly will no doubt wish to make its own announcement in due course.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers Markets
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage farmers markets. [127036]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote and encourage the development of farmers markets. [127042]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister attended the launch of the National Association of Farmers Markets as well as a number of individual farmers markets. He also wrote to the leaders of all local authorities drawing their attention to the new association and the benefits which farmers markets can bring. The National Association of Farmers Markets was offered a grant under the first round of the agricultural development scheme. For the future, we are considering bids under the 2nd round of the ADS and farmers markets will be potentially eligible for financial support under the provisions of the England rural development plan.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met with the National Association of Farmers Markets to discuss the farmers market movement. [127054]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met the National Association of Farmers Markets at their launch on 25 May.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of farmers markets in the UK. [127057]

  Ms Quin
  The National Association of Farmers Markets has recently estimated that there are now over 200 farmers markets in regular operation across the country.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Staffordshire Moorlands and Staffordshire Peak District area has benefited from the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. [127043]

  Mr. Morley
  In my hon. Friend's constituency the majority of agri-environment expenditure is channelled through the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme rather than the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. There are over 700 ESA agreements in the South West Peak covering 23,700 hectares. In Staffordshire as a whole there are 230 agreements under the Countryside Stewardship and Arable Stewardship, and a further 81 applications this year which are awaiting processing.

  Livestock Farmers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance the Government have given to Britain's livestock farmers in the last year. [127045]

  Ms Quin
  Since August 1999, the Government have announced two significant packages of assistance for the livestock sector delivering in total £419 million. Livestock farmers receive some £750 million in payment under the CAP, to which this £419 million is an addition.

  Farm Incomes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on trends in farm incomes. [127046]

  Ms Quin
  In real terms Total Income From Farming doubled between 1990 and 1995 before falling back by over 60 per cent. between 1995 and 1999 to an average of £10,330 per full time farmer.

  Looking further ahead, future trends in farm incomes will be shaped by:
  future market developments;
  the trend in the exchange rate;
  the impact CAP reform has in shifting Agriculture toward a freer market;
  the pace and extent of industry re-structuring.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his priorities are for the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy. [127047]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government wish to maintain key features of the present arrangements such as national quotas based on relative stability and access restrictions within 6/12 mile limits. At the same time, we want to secure improvements to make CFP a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks, including enhancing the regional dimension and integrating environmental considerations more fully.

  Agricultural Wages Boards
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the effect of the Agricultural Wages Board arrangements on low-paid employees in rural areas. [127048]

  Ms Quin
  As part of the quinquennial review of the Agricultural Wages Board, announced in December 1999, independent research has been undertaken to evaluate the impact of the provisions in the Agricultural Wages Order.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the effect of the Agricultural Wages Board arrangements on low-paid employees in rural areas. [127051]

  Ms Quin
  While we have made no special assessment of the effect of the Agricultural Wages Board on rural rates of pay in general, we are aware that over the years some rural employers have based the pay for nonagricultural workers on the rates set by the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with horiculturalists' representatives to discuss horticulture in the last month. [127049]

  Ms Quin
  During the past month I have met representatives of the potato and ornamental horticulture sectors and visited a wide cross section of growers in the Vale of Evesham. I have also invited leading horticulture members of the National Farmers Union to a meeting to discuss the climate change levy.

  Genetic Modification
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will operate the precautionary principle in relation to new products involving genetic modification. [127050]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The current legislation prohibits the placing on the market of a new product involving genetic modification until it has been approved through the European Union. Consents are only granted once Member States are satisfied that all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to maintain the continued viability of small and medium-sized abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [127053]

  Ms Quin
  I am well aware of the position of small and medium sized abattoirs. Meat inspection charges are a matter for the Food Standards Agency.

  Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to promote environmentally sustainable forms of agricultural production. [127055]

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to promote environmentally sustainable forms of agricultural production. [127056]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have a range of policies to promote environmentally sustainable forms of agricultural production. These include advice and encouragement, incentives to help farmers in their dual role of food producers and stewards of the countryside, regulation to protect against threats to environmental resources and research and development.

  Organic Farming
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's expenditure is on research and development into organic farming methods. [127058]

  Mr. Morley
  The budget for MAFF's dedicated programme of research into organic farming methods is £2.1 million in this financial year.

  Under-10-metre Fleet
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in the licensing and quota management arrangements for the under 10 metre fleet; and if he will make a statement. [128756]

  Mr. Morley
  The under-10-metre fleet is an important part of the UK fishing industry and I am concerned to promote and ensure a stable future for our inshore fishermen.
  612W
  Last year the Ministry and the other Fisheries Departments invited comments on measures to improve the management of the under-10-metre fleet. More than 250 replies have been received from fishermen's organisations and individual fishermen. The majority of those commenting were opposed to further constraints being placed on this part of the industry such as a prohibition on weekend fishing, regional licensing or species specific licences.

  Although we have been successful in limiting the closure of fisheries, we do need to safeguard against the consequences of further increases in fishing effort. In recent years there has been a sharp increase in the construction of vessels between 9 and 10 metres. This trend prompted the Fisheries Departments to introduce monthly catch limits for North Sea nephrops last Autumn and to extend these arrangements to Area VII and West of Scotland nephrops for the year 2000.

  In our view it would be prudent to adopt further measures to constrain future growth in fishing effort within the under-10-metre fleet. Consequently, from 1 January 2001 it will not be possible to aggregate licences from vessels under eight metres onto vessels between eight and 10 metres and a limit of 70 vessel capacity units (VCUs) will apply to the aggregation of licences onto vessels below eight metres. Additionally, the Licensing Review Working Group, comprising representatives from industry and Fisheries Departments, has been asked to consider whether any changes should be made in the capacity penalties applying to the transfer or aggregation of licences within the under 10 metre fleet.

  The Fisheries Departments will continue to manage quota allocations for the under-10-metre fleet with the objective of providing fishing opportunities throughout the year. Steps have already been taken to underpin the main stocks of interest to under-10-metre vessels and special arrangements have been made for low impact fisheries such as handlining for mackerel. In future any surplus that arises on underpinned allocations will be utilised to acquire additional quota for this part of the fleet. Greater use will also be made of EU provisions on end year flexibility enabling quota to be borrowed from the following year and for certain stocks for any surplus to be banked. Consideration will also be given to whether suitable arrangements might be possible that would enable Producer Organisations to manage quota in respect of under-10-metre vessels within their membership.

  CAP
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to(a) taxpayers and (b) consumers. [127044]

  Ms Quin
  One of my Department's objectives, set out in its business plan, is to reduce the cost of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers. Agenda 2000 began this process, and the Government continue to press for further reform.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current fisheries agreements with non-EU countries indicating the cost of each to the Community's budget; how many vessels are involved in each case; and how many are(a) UK flagged and (b) UK owned. [127186]

  Mr. Morley
  The table lists current fisheries agreements between the EU and third countries and their estimated annual cost to the Community budget.

  Country

  Estimated annual cost £eu1

  Beneficiaries

  Cape Verde

  317,836

  France, Spain, Portugal

  Comores

  224,100

  Spain, France, Portugal, Italy

  Equatorial Guinea

  1,999,200

  Spain, France, Portugal, Italy

  Estonia

  2134,893

  Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden

  Faroe Islands

  Reciprocal

  Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, UK

  Gabon

  450,188

  Spain, France, Portugal,

  Greenland3

  24,090,750

  UK, Germany, France, Denmark

  Guinea Bissau

  5,602,500

  Spain, Italy, Portugal,

  Guinea Conakry

  1,842,600

  Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Portugal

  Iceland

  Reciprocal

  Germany, UK, Belgium, France,

  Ivory Coast

  622,500

  Spain, France, Portugal,

  Latvia

  2156,870

  Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden

  Lithuania

  2340,010

  Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden

  Madagascar

  473,100

  Spain, France,

  Mauritania

  32,469,600

  Spain, Portugal, Italy, France

  Mauritius

  256,781

  Spain, Portugal, Italy, France

  Norway

  Reciprocal

  UK, Portugal, France, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium

  Poland

  Reciprocal

  Sweden

  Russian Federation

  Reciprocal

  Sweden

  Sao Tome e Principe

  396,844

  France, Spain, Portugal

  Senegal

  7,470,000

  France, Spain, Portugal, Italy

  Seychelles

  2,147,625

  Spain, UK, France, Portugal, Italy

  1Using exchange rate of one euro = £0.6225

  2Plus reciprocal exchange

  3Community quotas of polar cod and capelin in Greenland waters are open to all member states

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on planned changes in the size of the UK fishing fleet; what corresponding changes are planned for other EU fleets, indicating(a) how many vessels will be affected and (b) what proportion of that country's fleet this represents; and what measures he is taking to use these changes to reduce the number of flagged vessels. [127187]

  Mr. Morley
  In document 7426/00, the European Commission recently published its mid-term review of the fourth Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV). At the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 16 June, the UK and a number of other member states expressed reservations about the Commission's recommendations for future policy on fleet restructuring. The Commission will be consulting extensively on the report's findings before making formal proposals for new legislation and the Government will be playing an active part in those discussions.

  Member states continue to be bound by the obligations for fleet reductions set out in MAGP IV and in the coming weeks the Commission will be publishing its report on Member states' progress (at 31 December 1999) in meeting those objectives. In implementing MAGP IV we are obliged to consider all vessels on the UK register.
  614W
  The manner in which the fishing opportunities obtained in third country waters is expressed varies from agreement to agreement. Total vessel capacity, number of licences, reference tonnages and numerical quotas are used singly or in combination to describe the fishing opportunities available to community vessels. It is not, therefore, possible to determine the number of vessels involved in every case. However, the table indicates which member states benefit from the opportunities made available under each agreement.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to replace the long-distance transport of live farm animals from Britain to southern Europe by a trade in meat and carcases; and if he will make a statement. [127300]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not legally open to the Government to end the trade in live farm animals to other member states if the arrangements for transporting them comply with the relevant EU animal welfare rules. We do devote considerable effort to ensuring these rules are met while the animals are on our territory, as well as to urging other member states, bilaterally and through discussions in Brussels, to follow our example. We shall also press strongly for improvements to the rules in the forthcoming review. Our preference is for a carcase trade.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to propose changes to EU law to the effect that live animals are not considered goods or products; and if he will make a statement. [127298]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have already obtained, at the intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam, a Protocol to the Treaty which characterises animals as sentient beings and requires the Community and the
  615W
  member states, in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June; and if he will make a statement. [127555]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council meeting in Luxembourg on 19 June 2000, accompanied by Brid Rodgers MLA, Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Executive.

  The main topic for discussion was a proposal for EU-wide rules governing the use of Specified Risk Materials to prevent the spread of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. There was no qualified majority for the proposal in the Council (Austria, Finland, Spain and Greece opposing, Germany abstaining) but the absence of a simple majority of member states opposing means the Commission are free to adopt it under the relevant procedures. I welcomed this important consumer safety measure which will apply appropriate controls on SRMs in all EU countries, and for which the UK has long been pressing.

  The Council deferred a decision on the 2000–01 CAP price proposals until its July meeting. In order to avoid a legal vacuum when the sugar and pigmeat marketing years begin on 1 July however, the Council agreed to extend current price supports as from that date. I, Sweden and the Netherlands voted against the decision on sugar for which we consider a support price cut is required. The decision on pigmeat was agreed unanimously.

  A first Council discussion of the Commission's proposal to establish income stabilisation funds in the pigmeat sector revealed a divergence of views. Many member states, including the UK, expressed fears that the proposal would exacerbate market price volatility and distort competition. Others felt provision of Community finance and greater compulsion on producers to participate in stabilisation funds was the key. The Council will return to this issue in due course.

  Under Other Business I urged the Commission to review its approach to the allocation of export refunds for processed agricultural products in the context of budget and WTO constraints. I expressed particular concern at the Commission's decision to suspend the issue of refund certificates, which has caught out many companies through no fault of their own. I also requested Commissioner Fischler to ensure that cutbacks in refunds for future years avoid placing a disproportionate burden on particular sectors, notably cereals-based spirit drinks.

  Also under Other Business I strongly supported the Swedish Minister's call for better enforcement by all member states of the EU rules on the welfare of animals in transit, as well as further, more rigorous legislation.
  I particularly welcomed the new Commission's Working Group, which Commissioner Byrne has established, at the United Kingdom's suggestion, to address these issues.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary regarding the status of the proposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [127063]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I regularly meet with the Foreign Secretary and other ministerial colleagues to discuss matters of mutual interest. However, by long standing convention, adhered to by successive Governments, neither the fact that the Law Officers have been consulted on an issue, nor the substance of the advice they have been given, is disclosed outside Government and other than in exceptional circumstances. I therefore am not prepared to say whether the Foreign Secretary has consulted the Law Officers about the proposed Charter.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. [127064]

  The Solicitor-General
  In my answer to the hon. Member's question on 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 1107, I outlined the initiatives in place to improve efficiency in the Crown Prosecution Service. These include a major programme of IT modernisation, the development of joint/police/CPS Criminal Justice Units and Trial Units and the implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. Good progress continues to be made on all these initiatives.

  I am pleased to say that the first Criminal Justice Unit and the first Trials Unit were opened in Bristol on Monday 26 June 2000. police administrators and CPS lawyers and caseworkers are working together in the Criminal Justice Unit at New Bridewell Police Station, serving all the magistrates courts in Avon. Similar joint working is proceeding in the CPS premises, Froomsgate House, which is preparing cases for hearing at Bristol Crown Court.

  These joint working arrangements will reduce duplication and delay, release additional resources for the police and for the CPS to focus on serious casework in the Crown Court.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the estimated legal costs are to the defence of the Employment Tribunal cases brought against the CPS by Mrs. Bamieh; and if he will make a statement [128119]

  The Solicitor-General
  The estimated legal costs incurred by the CPS are £155,630.91 The legal costs covered six separate cases brought against the CPS by Mrs. Bamieh which contained a large number of allegations. Two separate Tribunal Hearings were involved and a remedies hearing. All outstanding cases between the CPS and Mrs. Bamieh were resolved when a settlement, the terms of which are confidential to the parties, was reached on 8 February 2000. Mrs. Bamieh continues to work for the CPS.

  Espionage
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions he has had on the handling of decisions on whether to prosecute in espionage cases following the Intelligence and Security Committee's report dealing with the case of Mrs. Melita Norwood. [127065]

  The Solicitor-General
  As the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee indicates, procedures for reviewing cases for possible prosecution have been strengthened. While criteria exist for prosecutions, the Security Service has agreed to send all material relevant to prosecutions to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers on a trial basis for 12 months. This will allow the Law Officers to assess when a prosecution is possible for all cases and validate these criteria for future use.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria the Law Officers apply when determining whether to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal. [127066]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if we consider them to be unduly lenient.

  An unduly lenient sentence is not one which is merely lenient but one which falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, applying his or her mind to all the relevant circumstances of the case, could reasonably consider appropriate. The appropriate range must be determined by consideration of the principles of sentencing and other guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal.

  Court Cases (Duration)
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress is being made in speeding up the completion of court cases, with particular reference to cases involving persistent young offenders; and what role the Crown Prosecution Service is playing in this. [127067]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is fully committed to playing its part in delivering the Government's pledge to reduce delays in the youth justice system, particularly with regard to persistent young offenders.

  The figures (announced today) for the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales in the first quarter of this year showed a fall from 108 days in 1999 to 96 in 2000. This compares with 125 days in 1998 and 141 days in 1997. This downward trend in the figures has been a continuing feature since the Government's Pledge.

  At a national level, the Crown Prosecution Service has been, and continues to work closely with other Criminal Justice System partners; the Narey reforms and the new local good practice already introduced into the Youth Court will help to make further progress.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the criteria applied by the Crown Prosecution Service in decisions on whether to prosecute for alleged crimes of vandalism. [127068]
  618W
  The Solicitor-General
  As with any other offence, the Crown Prosecution Service is guided by the Code for Crown Prosecutors when deciding on whether a prosecution should be brought in relation to offences involving vandalism.

  If the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is satisfied on the facts of a particular case, consideration of the public interest factors set out in the Code will follow in the usual way.

  If these tests are satisfied then offences resulting from vandalism are prosecuted primarily under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 217W, on the Millennium Dome, what factors underlay the length of time taken by his Department to establish that it was impossible to provide any meaningful statistical breakdown of visitors by region. [125528]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) examined various ways of distilling the information requested in a format that would be meaningful. NMEC discovered, however, that given the wide range of ways in which visitors to the Dome are able to purchase admission tickets, it was not possible to provide any meaningful statistical breakdown of visitors by region.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what software systems are being used in selling or booking tickets to the Millennium Dome;[125530]

  (2) what proportion of ticket sales to the Millennium Dome has been purchased at (a) central sales points, (b) the Millennium Dome call centre and (c) other locations. [125531]

  Janet Anderson
  The following software systems are used to sell Dome admissions:Door sales—Enta;
  Dome ticket line and Dome trade line—Enta;
  National Lottery retailers—G-Tech (Camelot system with software changes to enable sale of Dome admission);
  National Express—NE reservations system via interface to Enta;
  Train Operating Companies—Tribute, Facets, Aptis;
  Overflow Call Centres—BOCS, WTS, classic TicketMaster;
  City Cruises—Enta, Haven;
  Web sales—bespoke web sales engine developed by Compaq.

  In addition each of 100 or so key accounts use their own reservations systems to sell Dome admissions which are confirmed and billed using Enta via the Dome trade line. Sales reports are received electronically from all of

  619W
  the above systems and are consolidated into a bespoke channels database from which consolidated sales reports are generated.

  Ticket sales through central sales points to 19 June:
  Door sales-424,048 (15 per cent.);
  Dome ticket line, Dome trade line 1,552,884 (53 per cent.);
  Other locations (travel trade, Camelot etc.)-966,110 (32 per cent.).

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about visitor activity at Stonehenge on 20 and 21 June. [127709]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Approximately 10,000 people peacefully celebrated the summer solstice at Stonehenge on 20 June this year. English Heritage, in close a positive liaison with Druid and pagan groups and the Wiltshire Constabulary, successfully implemented a policy of managed open access. The site was stewarded by over 70 English Heritage personnel, ably assisted by volunteer stewards from Druid and pagan groups, who were encouraged to self-steward. I am grateful to the police for their skilful and imaginative support, and I am pleased to report that there were no arrests or significant incidents. There was no camping at the site and the visitors willingly left by the agreed time of 07.30 the next morning, most taking their litter with them. Stonehenge reopened to the public at 09.00 on Wednesday 21 June.

  Conference Facilities (London)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the desirability of additional conference facilities in central London. [127712]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government appreciate the value to London which would be associated with the development of a new international convention centre in the capital, particularly in terms of the additional business tourism which it would attract. In particular, Ministers have welcomed the work done by London's business organisations to explore the feasibility of the proposal and have taken an active interest in the campaign to find commercial developers.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which royal palaces and other buildings occupied by members of the royal family are owned by the State. [127711]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. The Occupied Royal Palaces are owned by The Sovereign on behalf of the nation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is statutorily responsible for the maintenance of the English Palaces under the Crown Lands Act 1851. Property services for these palaces are funded by grant in aid to the Royal Household from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127118]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development has no interactive voice response systems that deal with telephone inquiries from the general public operational either within the Department or in use in any agencies thereof.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to her Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered(a) citing disproportionate cost, (b) stating that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) citing commercial or other confidentiality. [128019]

  Mr. Foulkes
  No parliamentary questions tabled to my Department, between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, remain outstanding.

  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the report of the Independent Inspection Panel commissioned by the World Bank on the China Western Poverty Reduction Project. [127578]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Britain supported this project in the Bank Board meeting in June 1999 because it would bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. We also supported the Board's conclusion that no funds would be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent Inspection Panel had conducted an investigation, and pending further environmental and social assessments.

  The report by the Independent Inspection Panel, and the Bank Management's response to it, will be discussed at a World Bank Board meeting in early July 2000. We will be looking very carefully at the conclusions of the Inspection Panel Report, and the Bank Management's response to it, in advance of the Bank Board meeting.

TSCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will reply to the letter of 17 May from the Reverend David Pitkeathly of the Parish Church of St. Andrew, Peterhead. [128029]

  Mr. Wilson
  I replied to the Reverend David Pitkeathly's letter of 17 May on Friday 23 June.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure that the proposed advertisements from the Appointments Commission soliciting applications for membership of the House of Lords are(a) placed in the Big Issue, (b) shown on TV and in cinemas and (c) broadcast on radio and the Commission's website. [128335]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This is a matter for the Commission.
  622W
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when she last met the Chair and the other members of the Appointments Commission. [128311]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have never met them in their present capacity, nor would I expect to do so. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Lords met the Chairman, Lord Stevenson, on 29 June as the last in his series of meetings with the party leaders in the other place.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the Appointments Commission will launch its website. [128336]

  Mrs. Beckett
  That is a matter for the Commission. However, I understand they expect to launch it later in the summer.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Royal Ulster Constabulary
Lord Laird Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the levels of compensation and pension paid to the families of Royal Ulster Constabulary members murdered before 1982.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, while Her Majesty's Government have every sympathy for the families of officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary murdered before or, indeed, after 1982, they do not, at this time, intend to review levels of compensation or pension then paid. However, noble Lords will wish to know that the report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, commonly referred to as the Patten report, bears recommendations in respect of aid for widows and others in similar circumstances; for example, disabled officers. Those recommendations have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government and are being taken forward in discussions with widows' representatives that were initiated in May.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that widows and families of RUC officers have paid the highest possible price in defence of all citizens of the United Kingdom? Does he agree that it is both immoral and indefensible that particularly those widowed before 1982 should be required to live on the poverty line, with little recognition of their sacrifice and their plight, while the Government seem more intent on releasing and supporting those who committed the murders?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that the widows and relatives of those RUC officers who have been murdered during the course of the Troubles have paid the highest price. We are second to none in our admiration of them. On the pensions, the position is that pre and post-1982 widows receive a pension of 50 per cent of the salary of their husbands at the time of their deaths. That is increased in line with inflation. Inevitably, as time has gone on, inflation has not kept pace with the increases in earnings of serving police officers. As I indicated in my Answer, the Patten report recognises that there is a problem and suggested the setting up of a fund. We accept that recommendation. In April or May next year a fund will he set up with assets in it. I cannot say that that will deal with all the problems, but it will make some contribution to them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he has answered the Question on
1060
pensions but not on compensation? I seem to remember that the Bloomfield report took evidence from the Disabled Police Officers Association that the level of compensation that police officers received for injuries incurred in the course of their duty was much less than they would have received if they had suffered an industrial injury. However, at that time they did not have the legal expertise or the power to support their case to acquire the sort of compensation that they should receive. Is the compensation being reviewed as well?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the fund that the Patten report recommended should be set up would not just deal with the position of widows but would also address the position of disabled officers. As I believe I made clear in my Answer, at the moment the Government have no plans to review either the level of compensation for those who are disabled or for widows.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister do something to relieve my ignorance, which may be shared by other noble Lords? Surely, a person who is murdered while he is a police officer stops qualifying for pension before the pension policy has matured. Therefore, is it not the case that the widow receives 50 per cent of a pension that is less than she would have received had the officer continued to work until the normal retirement date?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that would depend on the age of the officer at the time of the murder. The widows receive 50 per cent of the earnings at the time, increased in line with inflation.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are talking of only 80 pre-1982 widows. Naturally, over time that number will decrease. Will the Minister reconsider whether to look at some means, independent of Patten, whereby the pre-1982 widows' pensions can be augmented to a more equitable level compared with the pensions of the post-1982 widows, some of which are five times the pre-1982 level of pension?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in terms of the level of pension, whether pre-1982 or post-1982, there is no difference in principle. The reason why the position worsens is that the earnings of the officers are increased only by inflation and not by any increases that have occurred to the officers' earnings. As a result, the longer the time since the death occurred, the less is the position of the widow. The year of 1982 is riot a magic figure in that respect.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the right solution is to take care of anomalies in compassionate cases through the proposed foundation for the RUC?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, precisely how the Patten money—if I may call it that—is distributed

1061
is a matter for the commission. One issue that the Patten money will address is the penury of some of the widows.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that he fully understands that serious divisions exist in this matter? The widows of officers killed in the troubles pre-1972 received a gratuity of only twice salary, whereas those later and currently receive five times salary. Also, as I understand it, the pension for widows was reduced by the amount of the industrial death benefit.
The difference between those receiving a gratuity between 1969 and 1972 and those receiving it today is a factor of five. Can the Minister assure the House that under the new legislation, and in view of the Secretary of State's statement that there will be generous compensation factors for the force after Patten, those anomalies will be taken into due account in the process of passing the new Northern Ireland peace legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to 1972. I believe the change occurred in 1982. The gratuity negotiated effectively across all of the UK, including Northern Ireland police associations, was five times for any death which occurred as a result of service, not just as the result of murder in the course of terrorist activities. It was increased from two times salary to five times in 1982.
The pension arrangements are the same both pre and post-1982. The Patten report does not specifically include anything about that. Separately, the Government indicated that they will set up the fund that Patten recommended and, as I indicated, the money should be available in the spring of next year. I cannot give any assurances in relation to precisely how that money will be spent. It is intended to address the distress and penury of the widows and disabled policemen.

Sri Lanka
3.14 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any action in relation to the situation in Sri Lanka.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the tragic situation in Sri Lanka and called upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately. We have held discussions with Norway, India, the United States, our EU partners and the Sri Lankan Government. We fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks. We have reminded both parties
1062
of their responsibility to ensure the safety of the civilian population in conflict zones, particularly the Jaffna peninsula.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that all proposals so far put forward by the Sri Lankan Government have been rejected by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, greatly to the tragedy of the Tamil and Sinhalese people? Is there any scope here for a wider Commonwealth initiative alongside that of India to back up the efforts being made by Norway to find a solution? Will the British Government take action to stop organisations in this country from sending financial aid and other support to the Tamil separatists and insurgents? The longer they receive assistance of that kind, the longer the conflict will continue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are extremely concerned about that situation. We have spoken to our partners around the world in relation to this issue. The view is that Norway has been accepted by the parties as the appropriate negotiator during this period and we will give it our full support. Obviously, if and when it seems appropriate for a more active or different participation from any of our partners, ourselves or others in the Commonwealth, to take a greater lead, that will be given concrete consideration.
I share the noble Lord's concern about the terrorist groups who are allegedly giving support. That is something we condemn and we in this country are taking every opportunity to ensure the terrorists do not succeed. It is of significance that the Terrorism Bill will be passing through this House in due course.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the LTTE has an office in London? It collects money via that office, contributions being solicited from Tamil businessmen. The Sri Lankan authorities allege that those moneys are used to finance the military activities of the LTTE in Sri Lanka. Will the Government consider doing more to combat those activities? Will they discuss the issue with the Canadian authorities who have a similar problem in their country?
In relation to the negotiations and the facilitation by Norway, does the noble Baroness agree that Mr Prabhakaran recently showed himself to be completely intransigent and unwilling to negotiate because he believes he is winning the military struggle? Will not the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, suggested, consult other Commonwealth countries to see what further measures can be taken to bring this tragic conflict to an end?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I can first deal with the noble Lord's last point. We have consulted our partners. There is unanimity in relation to how this matter should be dealt with. It is important to establish who will be the most effective interlocutor.

1063
Norway was identified for that role. It is discharging that role with due diligence and it is important that we support it in that regard.
In relation to the activities of the LTTE in the UK, we are aware of the assertions that money is being collected. We remain determined that the UK should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism overseas in any way. The Government do not accept that terrorists feel welcome in the UK or that we will not take appropriate action. Where police investigations yield credible evidence that terrorist crimes have been committed, action is taken either under the criminal law, supported as necessary by the existing prevention of terrorism legislation or Immigration Act powers.
So we hear the assertion. If there is evidence that what the noble Lord says is true, the police will investigate. We will do that with vigour.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many asylum seekers there are in the UK from this conflict area? I am given to understand that the Sri Lankan authorities are concerned that it is via the asylum seekers' road that much of these funds actually goes back into Sri Lanka.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give your Lordships specific figures in relation to the number of asylum seekers. However, I can say that each asylum application will continue to be dealt with on its individual merits, in line with our obligations under the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol. We shall look at these applications most carefully. Noble Lords can be assured that it is only in those cases where we feel that asylum is merited that such granting will take place.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the comments of my noble friend Lord Eden and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is the Minister aware —I am sure she is—that there is very great concern about the Tamil network operations in this country, as in Canada? Does she accept that we really must press for action to be taken to overcome the very strong feeling in Sri Lanka that, inadvertently—but, nevertheless, actually—-we are aiding and abetting these organised groups which are planning violent atrocities on a very undesirable scale?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if that were to be happening, it would, of course, be a disgraceful state of affairs. However, I can assure noble Lords that we do adhere to the rule of law in this country. We must have evidence before individuals can be arrested and dealt with. Moreover, where there is such evidence, the police authorities here will prosecute. I am sure that no one in this House would seek to suggest that this country should behave illegally or improperly in arresting those on either suspicion or assertion, and against whom there is no cogent evidence.

International Criminal Court
3.21 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will bring forward legislation to ratify the International Criminal Court.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will be published as soon as practicable in this parliamentary Session, and introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the fact that the legislation will be published. However, given that the treaty requires 30 ratifications, can the Minister say how many countries have already ratified the treaty? Is it not essential that this country, especially in view of the fact that we are one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, should set an example to other countries by ratifying the treaty as soon as possible? Is it reasonable, therefore, to expect that the Bill will be brought forward early in the next Session? Further, would it perhaps be suitable for this legislation to be dealt with in the Moses Room, as that would enable it to become law sooner?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that 12 countries have ratified the treaty to date. Of course, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to say anything as to when the legislation will be introduced. However, I can certainly commend to the House some of the comments made by the noble Lord. If, as I believe, there is unanimity in this House on the matter, I am sure that we would all wish this particular Bill Godspeed.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can my noble, friend the Minister confirm that it continues to be the policy of the Government to maintain inviolate the existing text of the treaty and to persuade the American Government—if we can—that, if they have nothing to regret, they have nothing to fear?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that Her Majesty's Government are robust in their support of the International Criminal Court and that we shall continue to do all that we can to persuade our American colleagues that the text is an appropriate one with which they can concur. We shall continue to talk with them because it is of great importance that they should feel able to support the ICC in due course.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by the Americans are unacceptable? Therefore, will the Government take the lead not only in persuading our other allies to reject

1065
those proposals but also, if they do come before the preparatory committee, in ensuring that they are rejected?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is right to tell your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government have some concerns about the way in which the USA is approaching this proposal; and, indeed, we are discussing the matter with those concerned in some detail. The preparatory conference is taking place at present and, obviously, such matters are still under consideration. I can reassure the House that the Government's commitment to this Bill and to the ICC remains firm.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that if the court had been up and running earlier many of the problems that arose in the Pinochet case would have been resolved?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know whether the court could have been up and running so quickly, but these are issues that we hope will be amenable to being dealt with by the ICC in the future. Indeed, there would be great benefit in that development.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, before we establish a new criminal court, would it not be advisable to be absolutely satisfied with the existing ad hoc tribunals, especially those in relation to Rwanda and Yugoslavia? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government regard it as satisfactory that part of the financing for these bodies should come from the private sector? Is that really acceptable for a court? Further, do not the Government have to be clear about their own attitude to international law? For example, how will establishment of this court be compatible with a speech made by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr Peter Hain, in which he called for immunity from prosecution for war crimes for Jonas Savimbi?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as regards financing, the ICC and how it will be financed will be a matter for discussion and consultation with all the parties. I am not able to give the noble Lord a definitive answer as to how that will be done. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for me to do so at this stage. I should point out that the other tribunals have had to engage in some very difficult issues and, so far, they have produced credible results.
We are moving to a different stage with the ICC. We hope that it will provide a certain cogency and coherence that has not been present before. We are hopeful that such matters will become a little easier to resolve once the ICC is up and running. I can tell the noble Lord that our own attitude towards international law is absolutely clear. Mr Muvunyi has been arrested and is awaiting trial. He will be transferred, as is appropriate, in due course.

Human Genetic Code
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the immediate next steps they plan to take in the light of the unravelling of the human genetic code announced on 26th June.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government will work actively to ensure that the promised benefits are delivered. In the last comprehensive spending review, the Government increased the budgets of the relevant research councils by £142 million over the period to 2002 in order to expand research into human genetics. Work on post-genomics will continue to be a major priority for the future. The Government are also very conscious of the important social and ethical issues that this scientific breakthrough will raise. We set up the Human Genetics Commission earlier this year to consider these issues and to consult widely with the public.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does the noble Lord agree that one of the most pleasing aspects of this breakthrough, which was the result of teamwork on the part of 18 countries, is that the knowledge derived from the project has been kept within the public domain? However, is the Minister confident that we can maintain that position? Can he tell us what is the current position of the American courts; for example, will they be able to withstand the pressures for patenting that are placed upon them?
Further, given that the British contribution to the project was funded by the Wellcome Foundation and that two-thirds of the American contribution was funded by the Federal Government, is the Minister confident that our universities and research institutes are in a position to be able to exploit the wealth of material that is now available to scientists in this country, rather than losing them overseas?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked several supplementary questions. As regards the public domain, the answer is no. All that can be guaranteed is that the partners to the Bermuda Agreement who agreed in 1998 that they would make such information public will continue to do so. That is the policy of the Federal Government and, indeed, of the Wellcome Foundation. Other bodies that gain information about the human genome through their own efforts can take whatever decisions they wish about making it public.
That, of course, is a completely different question from that of patenting, which was addressed by the Blair/Clinton declaration on the human genome. One must ensure that someone cannot obtain a patent unless he puts the information into the public domain. The main issue there is to define exactly where a patent can be issued. Everyone has agreed that one cannot

1067
patent the broad data and that utility and invention must be involved. However, the question is how one defines that. That will be a difficult issue.
As regards university exploitation, our universities are in good shape to undertake that. We have given them extra money. They are in a position to undertake the next stage of research to develop medical benefits from the information.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I accept what the Minister said about the imperative for good science and good ethics to march hand in hand. However, does not he agree that the process would have greater credibility if the Human Genetics Advisory Commission had at least one dissenting voice among its membership? It will not be accepted as a credible body to examine the ethics of genetics as regards future human cloning unless it has dissenting voices in its membership. Does not the Minister accept that civil liberties issues—confidentiality, privacy, and the big vested interests of the insurance industry, which has so much to gain from some of the measures that are being prornoted—also need to be weighed in the balance? Will he set himself entirely against eugenic practices that may emerge from the advances?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Human Genetics Commission has only just been set up. Therefore, it is too early to ask whether its membership includes dissenting voices. However, given the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is its chairman, and given her performance in this Chamber on a number of occasions, we can be certain that there will be at least one dissenting voice! It is absolutely clear that the matters the noble Lord raised with regard to eugenics will not be tolerated under our system.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the potential benefits for human health arising out of this development are enormous but that in the first instance it is likely within the not too distant future that genes which confer susceptibility to various diseases will be identified, thus allowing measures to be taken where appropriate in preventive medicine, and that in the longer term the prospect of gene therapy being used to cure some at present fatal disorders will also arise? Does the Minister also agree that the legal issue is important? The discovery of a human gene can be patented only if there is, as he said, an element of invention involved.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that the benefits of this development are huge. It will enable us soon to identify genes which confer susceptibility to various diseases. That enables preventive measures to be taken. In the long term there is the possibility of gene therapy. While we should be conscious of those benefits we should proceed carefully as regards the ethical and social issues that are involved.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the benign effects of genetic
1068
testing. However, many of us are concerned about genetic testing for insurance purposes. Only last week the Government's Genetics and Insurance Committee published its application form for use by insurance companies when applying for approval of certain genetic tests. Should we not consider whether those tests should be used at all? Have not the Government already sold the pass?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that genetic tests are currently used.. Anyone who has undergone a medical for life insurance purposes is asked questions, the sole purpose of which is to determine whether he or she has any genetic susceptibility. The issue of genetic testing for insurance purposes is an extremely complicated one. Again, we need to proceed carefully in that area. The Government have set up the Genetics and Insurance Committee to assess whether any of the tests have actuarial predictability to enable them to be used. The Association of British Insurers has agreed that if the tests fail that assessment they will not be adopted.
There are other important social issues that need to be addressed. We have asked the Human Genetics Commission to keep those issues under review. It is not a simple matter of being able to abandon the tests easily, given that they already exist. There is also the following difficult issue; namely, that if people were able to keep the results of the tests secret, one would have what is called in the trade "adverse selection" in the sense that people would be able to obtain life insurance of a high value without the insuring company having access to the relevant information.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has revealed that there are international agreements, at least in a narrow range, on matters of patentability. However, on the more worrying issues of eugenics there is no international agreement. Is this not an area in which we should be concerned outside our own shores as well as in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are some patenting agreements but, as a whole, this is an area where each country has its own patenting laws. That is one of the difficulties in that there is not a universal agreement on these issues. However, there is a European directive on patenting and therefore there is a common European position on this matter.
I think that everyone would wish to see an agreement established on eugenics. However, there is no such agreement at present. I do not think that at the moment it is a particular issue.

Transport Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

1069
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Transport Bill has been recommitted that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 30,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 31 to 33,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 34 to 36,

Schedule 4,

Clause 37,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 38 to 63,

Schedule 6,

Clause 64,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 65 to 96,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 97 to 101,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 102 to 152,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 153 to 160,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 161 to 190,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 191 to 198,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 199 to 203,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 204 to 210,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 211 to 214,

Schedule 16,

Clause 215,

Schedule 17,

Clause 216,

Schedule 18,

Clause 217,

Schedule 19,

Clause 218,

Schedule 20,

Clause 219,

Schedule 21,

Clauses 220 to 226,

Schedule 22,

Clauses 227 and 228,

Schedule 23,

Clauses 229 and 230,

Schedule 24,

Clauses 231 to 238,

Schedule 25,

Clauses 239 to 248,

Schedule 26,

Clauses 249 and 250,

Schedule 27,

Clause 251,

Schedule 28,

Clauses 252 to 254,

Schedule 29,

1070

Clauses 255 to 259,

Schedule 30,

Clauses 260 to 265.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Utilities Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clause 3,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 4 to 51,

Schedule 4,

Clause 52,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 53 to 107,

Schedules 6 to 8,

Clauses 108 and 109.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question Motion agreed to.

Trustee Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to notify the House that, having been informed of the purport of the Trustee Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 26, leave out lines 33 to 41.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I indicated on Report, it has become necessary to introduce amendments at this late stage to take into account the coming into force of the Cathedrals Measure 1999 since the original publication of this Bill. I was grateful on that occasion to the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, for their generous indications that they were unlikely to find fault with them.
The provisions of the 1999 Measure are brought into force through some rather complex transitional provisions which mean, in effect, that the investment powers under the Cathedrals Measure 1963, which

1071
before the coming into force of the 1999 Measure applied to all cathedrals, will continue to have effect in respect of cathedrals which do not, for the time being, attract the provisions of the 1999 Measure. Once a cathedral attracts the 1999 provisions, the 1963 provisions will cease to have effect in relation to that cathedral. This group of four amendments sets out to achieve that end in respect of the powers of investment granted to cathedral bodies which, under both Measures, are derived from the 1961 Trustee Investments Act. With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak to these four amendments together.
Amendment No. I simply removes from Part III of Schedule 2 the amendment which was originally to be made to the 1963 Measure. Amendment No. 2 makes an amendment to the 1999 Measure, substantially similar to that removed by the Government's first amendment today, substituting the general power of investment in this Bill for the powers in the Trustee Investments Act 1961.
Amendment No. 3 makes provision such that for as long as the 1963 Measure continues to apply to any cathedral, the powers of investment that derive from it shall be the general power of investment under this Bill. Amendment No. 4 is entirely consequential and adds to Part II of Schedule 4 the details of the repeal carried out by Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that my lengthy researches into the Cathedrals Measures of 1963 and 1999 have convinced me that these amendments are wholly appropriate.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kingsland has also indicated his agreement to this amendment. I am happy to agree.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question. I am the High Steward of Norwich Cathedral but I was not aware of these Measures. Will the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to say how they will affect Norwich Cathedral?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as always, I shall be happy to correspond with the noble Earl and to give him the guidance that he seeks—at no cost to himself.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 27, line 19, at end insert—
("The Cathedrals Measure 1999 (No. 1)
In section 16 (cathedral moneys: investment powers, etc.), in subsection (1)—
(a) for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) power to invest in any investments in which trustees may invest under the general power of investment in section 3 of the Trustee Act 2000 (as restricted by sections 4 and 5 of that Act),", and.
1072
(b) omit the words from "and the powers" to the end of the subsection.").
Page 28, line 19. at end insert—
("The Cathedrals Measure 1963 (No. 2)
While section 21 of the Cathedrals Measure 1963 (investment powers, etc. of capitular bodies) continues to apply in relation to any cathedral, that section shall have effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1), for paragraph (c) and the words from "and the powers" to the end of the subsection there were substituted—
"(c) power to invest in any investments in which trustees may invest under the general power of investment in section 3 of the Trustee Act 2000 (as restricted by sections 4 and 5 of that Act).", and.
(b) in subsection (5), for "subsections (2) and (3) of section six of the Trustee Investments Act 1961" there were substituted "section 5 of the Trustee Act 2000".").

Page 29, line 31, at end insert—

("1999 No. 1.

The Cathedrals Measure 1999.

In section 16(1).the words from "and the powers" to the end of the subsection.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. If beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for your indulgence to make a very brief statement. As a Member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee I am exposed, if that is the word, to all Rills which come to your Lordships' House. This encourages me to make one comparative comment. The Bill, which I hope will pass shortly, is fairly short, well focused and quite clear. It is a Bill which reduces burdens rather than adds new ones. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been not only courteous throughout the passage of the Bill, but he and his department were ready to listen and to engage in open discussion. The amendments moved were not afterthoughts or remedies of bad drafting, but the result of debate—and they were produced on time. The result is that some of us are left with a feeling of considerable satisfaction. I am, certainly, and I participated throughout.
I want to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for reminding us that such sentiments are possible at the end of the debate on a Bill. I wonder whether he will find it possible to inform some of his ministerial colleagues of this practice.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind. He has succeeded in cheering me up. I shall draw his words to the attention of my colleagues.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons

Postal Services Bill
3.43 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 2 [The Consumer Council for Postal Services]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 79, line 30, at end insert—
(" . A regional committee shall establish adequate procedures to enable representations to be made to it by all users or recipients of postal services, including members of the public and businesses, and to examine and report to the Council on matters of concern to them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment which I am bringing forward at this late stage—for which I ask the indulgence of the House—because of a problem that has only just been brought to my attention.
At a time when the rural postal network is under threat from increasing use of automatic credit transfers, when the Royal Mail is failing to meet its service quality targets, when it is under the great pressure of losing revenue from the new competition generated by this Bill, from e-mail and from fax, the well-established Post Office advisory committees, known as POUNC, are being abolished and replaced by a new consumer council for postal services.
The regulator, the new postal services commission and the new consumer council will have considerable powers and duties to supervise both the Post Office and any other licensees. The new consumers council is proposing to disband the 140 locally-based voluntary committees that have existed since the 1960s and to replace them with paid regional committees.
These new arrangements give rise to several concerns. First, the increase in cost. Local Post Office advisory committees established by POUNC currently cost £650,000 per year to run. The new consumer council and its regional committees are estimated to cost around £2.5 million per year. That is an increase of 450 per cent.
The second concern is that it replaces volunteers with professional, paid members, which may not always be an advantage. This is because grass roots input from a large and diverse number of consumers—750, I believe—is being replaced by a handful of paid individuals. The current volunteers are drawn from a cross-section of business and private users and voluntary organisations.
Thirdly, and most important of all, although the new regional committees will be larger—and, presumably, more powerful and influential—the disadvantage is that there will be a loss of local contacts and local knowledge of local problems; for example, closures and relocation of post offices, siting of letter boxes, local delivery and collection problems, and so on.
I also wonder whether this could possibly be the thin edge of the wedge, leading to adverse effects and even the abolition of the local telecommunications advisory
1074
committees, which have a similar role in telecoms and which, in most cases, share members, staff, resources and funding with the local Post Office advisory committees.
This modest amendment does nothing to reduce the powers and duties of the commission, or of the consumer council or of any of the regional subcommittees that the council establishes under Clause 54(4). But they are too remote. All that the amendment seeks to ensure is that there is local access to enable local people to raise local problems—and to raise them locally rather than in some distant office. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness. I am not certain that her amendment deals with the particular issue she raised. Essentially, it demands procedures for representations; that would add to rather than reduce the complexity of the issue of paid committees.
I am entirely sympathetic to the view—which is the point of the amendment—that any committee of a council should establish adequate procedures to fulfil its role of the provision of advice and information to the council about relevant postal issues affecting the area for which it is established, as required by Clause 54(5)(a). However, Clause 54(5)(b) gives the council an important discretion as to what other purposes any committee should have.
It needs to be borne in mind that the term "regional committee" in the Bill includes both committees established for a whole country and any areas within that. This amendment presupposes that they all should have the same role in receiving, examining and reporting on representations. The council may find it sensible to arrange matters so that some committees reported to others on certain matters rather than to the council itself in the first instance. The council should be left with the flexibility to decide on these matters in the best way calculated to ensuring that it can fulfil its duty in Clause 54(1) of having regard to the different interests of different users of relevant postal services in different areas.
This amendment, for example, would force a regional committee to examine and report to the council on complaints by users or recipients of postal services should they make such representations to it. The council has the power to delegate its functions to committees. Clause 56 requires the council to investigate complaints which have not been satisfactorily dealt with by the provider of the relevant postal service and any delegation of that role should be left to its discretion. The amendment would force the council to give this function to committees. The council may wish the committees to have a mainly advisory rule and not to play a significant part in operational matters dealing with complaints.
The noble Baroness raised the question of cost. The amendment could lead to increased cost for the council, as all its committees would be forced to have resources to examine and report on representations on any matters put to it. The amendment also refers to

1075
"postal services". The noble Baroness has previously expressed concern about the council having too wide a role. I hope she will agree that the remit of any "regional committees" should be limited to "relevant postal services", as defined in Clause 51, and its functions in relation to public post offices in Clause 57. As drafted, the amendment does not link the matters of concern to postal services but merely states that users or recipients of postal services are the persons who are entitled to make representations. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courteous answer and also for the fact that he had some sympathy with my amendment. I am not altogether sure that I understand the point that if my proposal were to be adopted and there were more voluntary people that would cost more. I shall certainly read the Minister's comments carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 79, line 35, after ("and") insert (", subject to sub-paragraph (5),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 45, 46, 67 and 73. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 disapply the requirement for giving notice on proposals to set up committees for England or for areas within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under Clause 54(4)(b) or (c). Since POUNC has conducted a wide-ranging consultation on regional representation this spring, these amendments seek to avoid duplication of this consultation within what is likely to be less than a 12 month period which would delay the establishment of the committees.
Amendment No. 45 introduces transitional provisions to ensure the smooth transition from the existing regime of four councils to the new consumer council for postal services. Subsections (1) and (2) enable the Secretary of State to make an order to transfer property, rights and liabilities. Subsection (3) applies the provisions in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 3 to POUNC and the CCPS to allow the certain actions of POUNC to be continued by the new council and to protect third party rights. Subsections (4) and (5) preserve the employment rights of any staff seconded from the Civil Service to POUNC at the time of the transfer that choose to transfer to the CCPS. Subsection (6) defines what is meant by the term "Country Council" in this section.
Amendment No. 46 is required to allow both the Post Office company and the CCPS to operate properly. The Post Office company will obtain all its rights, property, and so on, by virtue of Clause 62, and all information belonging to the Post Office will transfer over to the Post Office company under this clause. Similarly, the CCPS will obtain information under the transfer envisaged by Amendment No. 45. Therefore, that information will be caught by Schedule 7 and without this amendment the Post
1076
Office and the CCPS would be prevented under the terms of that schedule from disclosing that information. That may well prevent the Post Office company and the CCPS from legitimately carrying out their business. Therefore, we have made exceptions to the general prohibition on disclosure of information in this schedule.
Amendment No. 67 is needed in consequence of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill which concerns pensions. It adds the Consumer Council for Postal Services to Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972.
Amendment No. 73 repeals the reference to the Post Office Users' Council in Section 14 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That provision is no longer necessary as it is superseded by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 80, line 2, at end insert—
("(5) The requirements of sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) do not apply to the establishment of any committee within the period of two months beginning with the day on which section 54(4) comes into force.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provision of a universal postal service: meaning]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 33 and insert ("the service of conveying relevant postal packets from one place to another by post and the incidental services of receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering such packets").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63. These are drafting amendments intended to tidy up and clarify the Bill. They deal primarily with the definitions of postal services, postal operator, post office, universal postal service post office and related consequential amendments. Together they ensure that references throughout the Bill are consistent. They narrow the definition of postal services, postal operator and post office to prevent catching persons or places only involved in the provision of related postal services; for example, the sale of stamps by a newsagent or the sale of envelopes by a stationer. These amendments ensure that these related services are caught only if they are provided in conjunction with the conveying, receiving, sorting, collecting and delivering of such packets. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 4A, I must point out that there is a mistake in the final line as printed. The final line of the amendment should be deleted and,
"community of 10,000 people or less",
should be inserted. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for pointing out this mistake to me.
Clause 5 [Other duties of the Commission in the consumer interest:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall exercise its functions in the manner which it considers best calculated to ensure the maintenance of a network of rural post offices at a level comparable with that which existed on the day on which this Act was passed.
( ) In this section, a rural post office means a post office serving a community of 10,000 people or less.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House because it is somewhat unusual to bring forward an amendment at this late stage. The amendment was tabled at the last minute, yesterday evening. On the other hand, it was equally unusual, I suggest, for a Statement, such as we heard yesterday, to be made so close to the Report stage. That will explain why there is the mistake in the bottom line; it was all done in rather a rush. Therefore, I ask the indulgence of the House. As I say to the Minister on many occasions, I hope that he will humour me on this amendment and not be cross.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that we welcome the fact that the Government have a package designed to help sub-post offices. We know the value of these rural post offices to their local communities. We know, too, that it is essential that we try to do everything we can to keep them. The Minister said yesterday that the Government are committed to ensuring that the rural post office network is maintained. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
We have suggested on numerous occasions that matters ought to be on the face of the Bill and the Minister answers in the same way—very politely but always the same answer—that this is a matter for the regulator to decide and that it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. The intention that these rural sub-post offices should be retained is an admirable one. Many questions were asked yesterday about how that would happen but no satisfactory answers were given. Therefore, it is possible that it will not happen. We want to ensure that it does.
I do not wish to repeat many of the questions asked yesterday by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and indeed one which certainly will be addressed by my noble friend Lady Byford. However, by way of example, we should like to know from where the money is to come. Much was said by the Government about how the banks' expertise would form a part of the package. Does that mean that the banks intend to put money into this, or will that expertise comprise
1078
only expert help and assistance? More specifically, with regard to this amendment, what does an "unavoidable closure" mean? That phrase is rather loose and we are a little concerned about it.
In Committee we made it clear that we are not seeking subsidies. What we want—I believe the wish is shared by all noble Lords in this House and, indeed, the Government—is to ensure that all sub-post offices will be in a position to handle sufficient business to enable them to function profitably. However, we acknowledged at the time that the new clause introduced to deal with subsidies was probably necessary in the event that, if all else failed, a permissive power would be in place to deal with the problem, should it arise. However, I made much of the fact that the new clause was added only after a rally of 2,000 sub-postmasters in Westminster Hall and the submission of a petition comprising 3 million signatures to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street. It struck me at the time that the clause was introduced as a response to a problem that suddenly became apparent. The Government felt that it was necessary to take some action.
The transformation of sub-post offices into universal banks will, I assume, require further primary legislation after this Bill has been enacted. We feel, however, that unless some form of provision is put on to the face of this Bill, what has been promised will happen may not happen. If the Government are certain that they do intend to pursue this course, then they should have no difficulty about adding a few words to the legislation before us today.
In our amendment we have been modest in the terms that were so ably corrected by the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. We have asked only to consider a community of not more than 10,000 people, which matches the description given in yesterday's Statement. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, because I, too, have put my name to this amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to utter a few words in support of it. Ever since the Government's decision to reverse the previous government's intentions on the payment of social security benefits through post offices, the future of sub-post offices has been the subject of a longstanding debate. After all that has been written and said on the issue, it boils down to a simple question: can they survive the introduction of payments by automated credit transfer to the 85 per cent of the population with bank accounts? To put it another way, can they survive on the minority that insists on being paid in cash? The Government believe that the sub-post offices can do so; they have stated that over and over again. Indeed, we heard that repeated in the Government's Statement made yesterday when the Minister introduced us to the long-awaited Performance and Innovation Unit report on modernising the Post Office network.

1079
The report concludes that it may be necessary to provide subsidies. After a great deal of argument and persuasion in another place, the Government have provided a power in what is now Clause 103 so to do. However, that is simply not enough. Yesterday the Minister was asked twice whether the findings of the report would necessitate introducing amendments to this Bill. To be fair to the Minister—I try to be fair to him on occasion—he told us, as he had told us previously, that it would not be necessary. However, now that I have had an opportunity to read the report, 1 must say that I disagree with him.
Each one of us, regardless of on which side of the debate we stand, agrees, in the words of 1066 and All That, that rural sub-post offices are, "a good thing". Several noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Byford, have waxed lyrical on the subject, and quite rightly so. Their practical and social functions cement present-day rural life even more than do, I am afraid, the churches or even village pubs. I believe that we are all agreed on that.
The PIU report makes it quite clear that sub-post offices should be preserved—not in aspic, but to prevent any avoidable closures. Noble Lords have only to turn to the Executive Summary to see the sixth bullet point where it states that:
"Rural post offices should he protected".
On further reading, on page 85 it states that:
"The Government should place a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network, and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices".
It goes on to say that the Government,
"needs to send a clear signal",
to that effect.
What could be clearer than to put on to the face of the Bill words such as those set down in this amendment?
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is difficult to form a view on the amendment because it does not appear on the Marshalled List. I am told that no Supplementary Marshalled Lists containing Amendments Nos. 4A, 17A and 20A are available either in the Prince's Chamber, the Peers' Lobby or the Printed Paper Office. If a few spare copies are to be had, I hope that they can be distributed and so solve this problem.I apologise for intervening on this point, but we appear to have run out of copies.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, while copies of the Supplementary Marshalled List are distributed to noble Lords who do not have them, perhaps I may take the opportunity to put forward the view from these Benches as regards the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon.
It was a great pity that the noble Baroness was unable to be in the House yesterday, obviously through no fault of her own. A lengthy discussion followed the Government's Statement and a number of comments were made. I speak on behalf of the party that campaigned consistently for the preservation of rural and urban sub-post offices during the closure
1080
programme that was initiated by the then Conservative government as a result of their decision to introduce automated credit transfer systems. However, from the tone of the speeches from the Conservative Benches, one would not think that this move had ever had anything to do with their administration. I find that somewhat ironic. However, in his remarks yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was good enough to say that only one opposition party has campaigned consistently for the preservation of rural and urban post offices.
Having said that, we raised a number of questions on yesterday's Statement. I do not share the implication behind the Conservative amendment that we do not trust the Government on this matter. I take the view that the Government and the Minister have made a number of key commitments as regards the preservation of the sub-post office network. Indeed, the only missing element is a commitment to the money that will be needed to fund the subsidies. If the network is to be preserved in the way indicated by both the Minister and Mr Byers, that will require a very substantial contribution of funds from the Comprehensive Spending Review. I have taken it that both Mr Byers and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, are confident that that commitment will be made.
A further concern, which I expressed yesterday on behalf of my colleagues, is that the tests that will be applicable in relation to maintaining, in particular, the rural sub-post office network, are slightly opaque. The first test—if no one is available to run the sub-post office then clearly the Government cannot be expected to subsidise that operation—is clear. However, in relation to the second test, detailed yesterday in the Statement—the commercial viability of ancillary retail services—I am worried that many rural sub-post offices will probably offer only very marginal services of that kind. If we are to preserve the rural sub-post office network, for all the reasons acknowledged by the Government when they accepted the PIU report, then it may well be that some rural sub-post offices will need to be subsidised during the six-year period, even if the ancillary retail side of their trade is not profitable.
Despite the fact that I object—"resent" is to put it a little too strongly—to the tone of the Conservative Opposition with regard to this matter, because I still have concerns over the second test, I can confirm that we on these Benches support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Razzall about the genuineness of the Government's good intentions. We have been offered a gift-horse. But it is the duty of all opposition parties to look a gift-horse in the mouth. That is what we are for!
Lord Razzall: I think it is about being beware of Greeks!
Earl Russell: I think Greeks can wait for another day. I shall confine my remarks to the issue of those who are on social security benefits, that being the main area of my responsibility. We welcome warmly an

1081
assurance in the report that people on benefit will continue to be able to receive cash at post offices. That was the point of our argument last Tuesday. We welcome that assurance most emphatically. But a second part to that assurance is needed, and it is precisely what the amendment addresses; namely, the assurance can be made good only provided we are satisfied that there will be a post offices at which the benefit can be claimed.
For those on benefit, access cannot be measured merely in miles. It must be measured in means of transport. The Minister said that customers were voting with their feet in changing to ACT. I shall leave out the question as to whether that statement was just a little rhetorical. What I want to stress is that it does not apply to claimants of income support—who are doing anything but voting with their feet. They are sticking firmly with the Post Office. It is at least a plausible hypothesis that a large number are doing so because, if you are on income support, it is highly unusual to be able to afford to run a car. If you do, you are probably not able to eat, which tends to diminish your availability for work. So, for people on income support, the ability to go to a post office which they can reach, on foot if necessary, can be vital. That is also true of a number of pensioners. I think in particular of my next door neighbour who suffers from emphysema and serious heart disease. I sometimes see her setting out for the nearest sub-post office. It is a key moment of her day because it gets her out of the house, but you can see that it is a real struggle for her to walk. We do not want to make that struggle any worse. So the question is: what sort of network are we assured of in the report?
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, I noted the phrase "unavoidable closures" and I, too, pricked up my ears. I noted also the point made yesterday by my noble friend Lord Razzall that none of this is to come into effect until autumn 2001. So, given the present rate of closure, we wonder how much of a post office network will be there in autumn 2001 and whether the Government have any measures up their sleeve for interim preservation.
When examined in detail, the funding arrangements in the PIU report appear slightly Heath-Robinson. For example, we read that it is possible that local authorities might be induced to provide a top-up to government funding. Nothing is said about standard spending assessments. The report concludes, at page 89, that "further work is needed". I do not dissent from that.
The report also mentions supporting the rural network "in case" it should be necessary. At present, 60 per cent of rural post offices are losing money. "In case" it should prove to be necessary? Are not those words caution-conspicuous even by the standards of Her Majesty's Treasury?
I understand that provision has been made for sub-postmasters to continue to benefit from a piecework payment for benefit transactions. Is there any provision in the Government's arrangements for the payments to the sub-postmaster to be uprated
1082
annually in line with inflation? If there is not, that payment will wither on the vine. Sub-postmasters need to be secure in terms of a reasonable prospect for their future in order to be able to plan. Without that assurance, they will find it very difficult.
Finally, the report indicates, at page 91, that after many different bodies have been consulted, the Government will further assess the right level of public support. It sets out the time-consuming process. We assumed yesterday that we should hear about this in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Will the Minister confirm that that is definitely the case? Can he make any definite statement about the level of Post Office network that the Government will commit themselves to preserving? Without such a definite statement, we still do not know whether we have got what we wanted. I hope that we have.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller, and also the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am patron of VIRSA, which has done a large amount of work with the Post Office and also in relation to small village shops. I should like to raise one or two items which I hope the Minister will be able to confirm.
In the Statement yesterday, and in the report to which we have referred, there is mention of the money that will come in to the various sectors within the Post Office service. Perhaps I may go through them in reverse order. Money will be made available for rural sub-post offices, and, perhaps to a lesser extent and in a different way, money will be made available for post offices which are situated outside towns and, like rural post offices, suffer greater deprivation than those in towns. No comment is made on commercial centres, which are obviously commercially viable at present. Will the Minister clarify this point? Will the commercial centre continue to supply subsidies in the way it has done, or is this new money? Will the money come from the Government—about which we cannot yet be told—or do the Government expect the post offices to put money for the new system up-front—some £250 million, I believe—bearing in mind that the Post Office service has already had to call on some of its reserves over the past year and has made a loss for the first time in 24 years?
Perhaps I may also take up the point made by the noble Earl on a minimum level of Post Office network. Earlier this week, when we debated this issue in relation to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, the noble Baroness Lady Hollis again used the expression, "provided there are rural sub-post offices". Perhaps I may press the noble Lord further on that point. The noble Earl used the word "level", and I have written down the word "density". They relate to the same concern. What is the base-line, density, or level of network anticipated by the Government? What slightly worried me in the social security debate on the same matter was that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, went on to talk about the fact that our country

1083
is better served in terms of post office provision than some other countries. She said that, by comparison with France, Germany and the rest of the world, we had more post offices per population. That sounded slight warning bells and set me thinking: does that mean that the Government are going to settle for fewer post offices that we presently have? If so, I should be grateful for some clarity.
Perhaps I may take up a further point raised by the noble Earl on claimants choosing to have their benefit paid directly into the local post office rather than using an available banking facility. In the same debate the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, referred to the fact that 50 per cent of new pensioners choose to use ACT. But, equally, that indicates that 50 per cent do not currently choose to use ACT. The figure of 54 per cent was quoted for those in receipt of child benefit who choose to use the new system—which, again, suggests that 46 per cent do not. The Government cannot have it all ways.
I am well aware that this is not Committee stage; therefore, it is difficult for us to come back on these points. I hope the Minister will clarify at least a couple of the issues that I have raised in addition to that mentioned by my noble friend.
From a personal point of view, I hope that the Minister can give us more clarity. My question to him yesterday following the Statement was very brief. The noble Lord answered readily when I asked whether it was government money, Post Office money or tax money. He said that he thought it was government money. I hope we may have a little more clarity in his response today.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon from the Front Bench.
Yesterday's Statement was welcome in that it gave some detail about how the Government see the preservation of rural post offices. The Minister gave a fair amount of detail about that in the accompanying booklet produced yesterday by the Performance and Innovation Unit. I still maintain, as does my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, that it is extraordinary that that report should be released three-quarters of the way through the parliamentary consideration of the Bill. My noble friend asked whether the Bill required any amendment. I am with him; I think that the Bill does now require amendment.
The noble Lord may say that the Government did not know when the PIU would produce its report. It would have been sensible to wait until the PIU had reported, or for one of his officials to have telephoned the unit and ask when the Government should programme the parliamentary consideration of the Bill.
None the less, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on two points, one of course being his description of Conservative Party policy on the issue and the second being his great belief in the administration under which we now find ourselves. Of course, we trust the Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench implicitly, but we should not legislate on
1084
the basis of words in government Statements. The amendment converts those sentiments into clear instructions to the commission. It would be very difficult, given the wide consensus in this House and in another place in favour of preserving a strong network of rural post offices, for the commission not to be so instructed, so I support my noble friend.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I declare an interest, as a pensioner of the Post Office.
I congratulate the Government on their immediate and positive response to the PIU report. It is such an excellent report in its recommendations on rural sub-post offices that it would be well to see the Government's wishes incorporated in legislation. By definition, all Members of this House are honourable Members, but over the passage of time what is said in good faith may have diminished commitment, whereas if something is in a Bill the government of the day have to explain, and persuade the House, if there is such a diminished commitment.
Therefore, although I understand the immense drafting difficulties in giving a legal interpretation, I hope that the Minister will consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, proposes in her amended amendment, not with a view to saying yes today, but with a view to saying that he will think about how to give more substance to the intentions of all Members of this honourable House.
I wish to mention one qualification, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said about the suburban sub-post offices outside areas of deprivation, areas which are well covered by the government Statement and the PIU report. It seems from the wording of the Secretary of State's Statement and the recommendation in section 8 of the PIU report, which explicitly envisages reductions by the Post Office in the number of these sub-post offices, that they should be bigger and better, and perhaps more vibrant. Perhaps the Government would he mindful of people of very mature years in straitened circumstances—there are many such people in suburban areas that are not areas of deprivation— who find it difficult to walk far and who live where there is limited public transport.
The question of hurt to people is not limited to the rural areas. There is also the question of hurt to the viability of the whole of a little shopping parade struggling to maintain services to its local community. If the post office in such a parade is closed, the viability of the other shops is imperilled, as is the service to people of modest means without cars. I hope that the Government will reflect very carefully on whether guidance can be given to the Post Office on handling such situations. I also hope that if for social reasons, rather than economic reasons, such an office should be maintained, the Government will exercise their powers to provide support.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall deal with the amendment first, because it is not only inappropriate, but technically deficient, and then with the whole series of issues raised that were not specifically directed

1085
to the amendment, including the question of real concern to noble Lords, which is that we deliver on our commitments to support rural post offices and encourage investment in other post offices.
The effect of the amendment would be to require the commission to exercise its functions in a manner which it considers best calculated to ensure the maintenance of a network of rural post offices at a level comparable to that which exists on the day the Bill is passed. That duty does not fit easily with the commission's duties under Clauses 3 and 5, which are respectively to ensure the provision of a universal service and otherwise to further the interests of users of postal services where appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators.
In so far as any problems with the network have an impact or potential impact on the maintenance of the universal postal service, it will, of course, be for the commission to take action to ensure that the situation is remedied in line with its duty as set out in Clause 3.
However, where the issues or problems do not affect the provision of the universal service, but nevertheless undermine access to public post offices and the government and other services available through them, it is a matter for the commission, acting not as an independent regulator but in its role as an expert body providing information and advice to the Government, as required by the Government. It is important that these roles should be seen as distinct. It is not for the regulator to provide financial assistance to rural post offices; that is clearly, as in the whole structure of the Bill, the responsibility of the Government.
Clause 42 imposes a duty on the commission to provide, in consultation with the Consumer Council, advice and information to the Secretary of State about the number and location of public post offices of such description as the Secretary of State may specify and their accessibility to users of postal and other services. The provisions of Clause 42, together with the requirement in Clause 45(2)(e) to report annually to the Secretary of State on such matters as the Secretary of State may require, provide all that is needed of the commission in respect of the postal network, where the issues go far beyond the maintenance of a universal postal service.
I hope that I have made the point very clear: if the amendment were made it would totally change the structure of the commission's role, in an undesirable way. The commission, which has very clear duties set down, would be given a responsibility which is not its responsibility, but clearly the Government's.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, will he clear up a matter that causes me some confusion as a result of what he has just said? What is the connection between the provision of any post offices and universal service provision? I see nothing about buildings or services of that type in the universal service provisions.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that was exactly the point I sought to make. In this context the commission is concerned with the provision of a universal postal service, not buildings that may require financial assistance. Throughout the debate many noble Lords have said that there should be clarity about responsibilities in this area and that the commission should focus on competitive issues and universal service provision. Therefore, in the context of this Bill it would be a grave mistake to give the commission a financial responsibility which is really that of the Government.
I deal with other issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with noble Lords who seek information and greater clarity in this area, which I shall try to provide at this stage in so far as it is possible to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, spoke about amending the Bill. He did not give a specific reason, other than in the context of the bank. It is not thought that a universal bank will require further primary legislation. Like any other company, the Post Office company will be able to become a bank provided it satisfies the relevant banking legislation. Therefore, I do not believe that at this stage any amendment is required.
I turn to unavoidable closures, which I had hoped was dealt with yesterday in the Statement and in my responses. In the PIU report and Statement it is made clear that we are talking about only two circumstances: first, those cases in which there is no one to carry out the tasks; secondly, those cases where someone runs a post office and decides to retire and there is no building in which to carry on those activities. I believe that those can rightly be described as unavoidable circumstances. Other than that, we have given a clear commitment to keep open all rural post offices which serve a population of 10,000. That is a clear commitment which covers exactly the concerns which have been raised.
As to people voting with their feet, I was guilty of a modest rhetorical flourish. I should have said that people have exercised their right of choice in this matter and an increasing proportion of them, as might be expected, have moved to a credit transfer system. That is one of the problems with which we are concerned. As to the financial side, I can only repeat what I said before. This matter will be set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review, from which it will be seen that this is a serious financial commitment to achieve our aim.
I deal finally with the whole question of the subsidy scheme. That matter must return to this House for an affirmative vote. That is the moment when the House can express a view on the nature and size of the scheme and whether it will achieve what is intended. I have great sympathy with those who want to know at this stage precisely what has been said about the financial side. However, the House will have the opportunity to express its view, and we believe that that is the appropriate way to do it. To insert this amendment and distort the role of the commission, which is to look after the interests of users and to ensure universal

1087
service provision, and the role of government, which is concerned with the social implications of the Post Office, will lead to great confusion that noble Lords on both sides of the House would not want.
On many occasions it has been said that any financial assistance that is provided should be clearly understood by everyone and not lead to any confusion of roles. While I have a great deal of sympathy for the points made in the debate, I do not believe that this amendment, which is technically deficient, is the way to achieve the intended purpose, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify his response to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale which I found difficult to follow. The Minister referred to Clause 42 which provides that,
"The Commission shall provide advice and information to the Secretary of State about—
(a) the number and location of public post offices of such descriptions as the Secretary of State may specify".
If the Secretary of State does not specify rural post offices, the commission cannot report to him. How does that clause tie in with Clause 3(1) where it is provided that,
"The Commission shall exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service"?
If there is no rural post office, there cannot be a universal postal service.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are two distinct points here. The universal service is concerned with the posting and receiving of letters. The nature of sub-post offices is, in that context, a different issue, and that is why such a distinction is drawn. There is a clear responsibility on the commission to report on what is happening in the network.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does it follow from his response to my noble friend Lord Caithness that benefit payments, in whatever form, do not fall within the universal service provision?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I understand it, the universal service provision is about the moving of letters between places, not the payment of social benefits, which is a separate issue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank other noble Lords in the House who have supported my amendment. I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply, in that he believes that my amendment is technically deficient. The Government said of every single item that I raised that they could not deal with it because it was a matter for the regulator. In particular, I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. We are very friendly over here, even though we have differences—I do not quite know the word—from time to time. The noble Lord thought that I was being too conservative
1088
in my disbelief about the Government's position if this matter was not on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, provided a much gentler interpretation. He said very firmly that governments say one thing but, as time goes by, legislation is not passed. The intention is diminished because circumstances change.
I believe that the commission should do whatever the Government tell it to do. If the Government wanted to tell the commission to maintain the network, they could do so. Let us assume that the Minister is correct and the amendment will upset the Bill, which is not our desire. Can the Minister assure the House today that the Government will table an amendment at Third Reading which makes clear on the face of the Bill that the network of rural post offices will be maintained? If so, that would satisfy noble Lords and, clearly, it would be right to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give that commitment. In any case, I do not believe that that is the appropriate way to deal with the matter. I assume that if I was sitting on the Benches opposite I would also be distrustful. However, the Statement made in this House could not have been clearer. We have made clear that the basis of the scheme is the maintenance of the rural post office network where there is a population of 10,000. We shall present a scheme of financial assistance. That was a clear commitment. We shall bring back a scheme of financial assistance to achieve that. At that point this House will have an opportunity to consider the issue. It will then be appropriate to do so. The Postal Services Bill is supposed to last for an extremely long time. In this Bill we should not impose on the commission a duty to do something which it is not set up to do. The Bill is about the status of the Post Office. I assure the House that we shall bring forward the scheme. That will be the opportunity to discuss this issue.
The proposed amendment relates to the responsibility of the commission. One cannot then relate it to some other issue. I give the assurance that we shall bring forward the scheme. However, the amendment relates to the role of the commission. It cannot then be related to some other issue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if I had made the mistake of placing the burden on the commission, I gave the Minister the opportunity to bring back an appropriate amendment. However, the Minister continues to talk about the amendment and the commission. Therefore, I shall not waste any more of your Lordships' time.
The second part of Amendment No. 4A should refer to,
"a community of 10,000 people or less".
I should like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): My Lords, before putting the Question, I make clear to the House the statement made by the Chairman of Committees. In place of a,
"community of not less than 7,500 people",
the second part of Amendment No. 4A, in the supplementary amendments to the Marshalled List, inserts,
"community of 10,000 people or less".
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Laird, L.

Arran, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Attlee, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Avebury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Biffen, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burnham, L.

McNally, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbrook, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Denham, L.

Razzall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Falkland, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Geraint, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hanham, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Higgins, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Walmsley, B.

Holderness, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Hooper, B.

Weatherill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howe, E.

Wilcox, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

1090

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Andrews, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Layard, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Levy, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Borrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Puttnam, L.

Elder, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rogan, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Serota, B.

Gilbert, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.53 p.m.
Clause 7 [Exceptions from section 6]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("£1") and insert ("50 pence").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am returning to this amendment which I moved in Committee because I said then that I was totally unsatisfied with

1091
the reply given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on behalf of the Government. I am sure that he will forgive me for saying that I was unsatisfied because I said it previously and of course there is nothing personal in it.
I want to remind your Lordships of the chronological sequence of events. The timing is crucial. In July 1999, the Government stated in their White Paper in unequivocal and entirely plain words:
"the Government will take a major first step towards liberalisation by halving the monopoly currently enjoyed by the Post Office to 50p … on items weighing over 150 grammes".
That could not be plainer.
On 16th September 1999, the Government placed an expensive display advertisement, seven inches by seven inches, in the Sunday Times. They were seeking candidates for the office of chairman of the Postal Services Commission. The advertisement stated:
"the Government is granting the Post Office greater commercial freedom but is convinced that successful reform requires more than this. It requires greater competition in the postal market; already a major first step towards liberalisation has been taken with the halving of the monopoly currently enjoyed by the Post Office to 50p from April 1st 2000".
Let me repeat those words:
"already, a major first step … with the halving of the monopoly currently enjoyed by the Post Office".
So at that stage, the Government's intentions are absolutely clear and unambiguous.
Matching words with actions, the Government laid an appropriate statutory instrument before Parliament to carry those intentions into effect. On 8th December, the Government tabled a Motion to revoke their own statutory instrument. Their feeble excuse—I believe that I described it thus last time—for that volte face was that the Trade and Industry Select Committee had recommended that the reduction should be further considered by the new commission.
The Select Committee's report was published on 14th September 1999, two days before the advertisement which appeared for a chairman of the commission. That is why on the previous occasion I said to the Minister that the excuse was feeble. The fact is, I cannot believe that the Government had no idea what was in that report and saw it only on 14th September. I am certain that they must have had the information before then.
It may be that the Minister's department was not so efficient. I know that sometimes it is difficult because when I asked about the PIU report on Tuesday, I was told that those concerned had no idea whether it was coming out on Wednesday. Therefore, I suppose it is possible. Nevertheless, the report was published and in the public domain two days before the advertisement.
I pointed that out in Committee and the Minister did not deny it. Indeed, today he nodded his head as I repeated it. Therefore, going ahead with the advertisement clearly shows that at that stage the Secretary of State was not going to follow the recommendation; the Government were going to go along with liberalising the market. And why should
1092
he? The whole thrust of the Government's policy as regards the Post Office is to reduce the monopoly. The European directive will force the Government to do so anyway.
The sequence of events, which I have just described as crucial, makes the whole sad story very clear. I apologise to the House for having to bring it back again in order to clarify the position, but when on the previous occasion I begged the Minister to tell me the real reason—not this reason—no answer was forthcoming.
I remind your Lordships that we had a White Paper announcing a reduction in the monopoly; followed by a statutory instrument carrying that policy into effect even before and totally independent of the passage of the Bill; followed in turn by an advertisement for a chairman telling candidates that their brief would be to preside over a reduced monopoly. And then, suddenly, the Government revoke their own draft order and say that that is to do with something else.
Quite clearly, there is a different reason. They might well have been got at by the trade unions. They could have been. From where else could the idea have originated? But perhaps I am wrong and perhaps the Minister will nominate a candidate other than the unions, which I suspect. But what he cannot continue to say is that it was the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee which caused their change of mind, because its report was in the hands of the Secretary of State well before the advertisement was published.
The excuse becomes even more incredible when it is noted that the report was made public on 14th September and the Motion to revoke the order was laid before Parliament on 8th December; that is, three months after the report was published and who knows how much longer after the Secretary of State received it.
It is clear that, as so often happens, the Government decided to shuffle the responsibility for what might be regarded by some as an unpopular decision on to someone else and say, "It's not my fault, guy. This will be a matter for the commission and I can't deal with it". But I must tell the Minister here and now that I hope to receive from him a proper and frank explanation of the Government's deviation from their own policy which they had announced and for which they had begun the legislative and administrative processes in the briefing of a potential regulator.
When I moved this amendment in Committee, I said that, because a reduction in the monopoly would occur, we believed that our proposal would be more helpful to the Post Office as it would enable it to compete, having got used to the change gradually. The chief executive, Mr Roberts, said that the Post Office could handle the change if it occurred in that manner. We believe that it would be very difficult for the Post Office if the change occurred suddenly and in one fell swoop. I should be most grateful if the Minister would tell me what the position really is. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these two amendments show an enthusiasm for the repetition of arguments which I am not altogether certain that I share. The noble Baroness raised exactly the same point in Committee and, I believe, received an extremely lengthy answer. However, I am happy to repeat that answer for noble Lords who may not have been present. If there is a certain sense of boredom in the House, I cannot be held totally responsible.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware of the 12th Report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, published on 14th September 1999. In the report, the committee recommended that the Government consider withdrawing the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 which would have reduced the monopoly to 50p in price and 150 grams in weight from 1st April this year so that the Postal Services Commission could consider evidence put to it of the effect of a reduction in the monopoly threshold and recommend to government an appropriate threshold. After careful consideration, the Government accepted that recommendation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will the Minister accept that the advertisement was published after the report was received? That is the point that I am making. If the Government were giving the matter such careful consideration, why did they place the advertisement?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may go through the sequence of events and all will become clear.
The chronology was as follows. The Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999, intended to reduce the monopoly to 50p, was laid on 8th July 1999 and was to come into force on 1st April 2000. The Sunday Times advertisement for the post of chairman, which mentions the 50p order, was first issued on Sunday, 19th September 1999. The Trade and Industry Select Committee's 12th report on the 1999 Post Office White Paper, which recommended that the Government consider withdrawal of the order so that the Postal Services Commission could consider the matter, was ordered to be printed on 14th September 1999 but published on Tuesday, 21st September 1999.
The Government wrote to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 29th September 1999 accepting its recommendation to refer the matter to the PSC. The Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999, which stopped the reduction to 50p from 1st April 2000, was laid on 20th October, coming into force on 1st December 1999. On 22nd November 1999 the Government sent their full response to all the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the Post Office White Paper.
We shall remit the issue to the commission as soon as possible and urge it to treat it as a high priority. Having accepted the Trade and Industry Select Committee's recommendation, I believe that it would be wrong to accept an amendment to the Bill which
1094
would reduce the scope of the reserved area before the commission has begun even to consider evidence and consult interested parties.
The overriding duty of the commission is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service; that is, the delivery of letters and parcels to any part of the United Kingdom at a uniform tariff. It is vitally important that all users, wherever they work or live in the UK, should be assured of those essential services. The Government place an enormous weight on the value of that obligation and we believe that greater competition must not undermine the services. We recognise that users of postal services expect that.
However, we do not believe that greater competition is incompatible with the provision of the universal postal service at a uniform tariff. We remain totally committed to greater competition in postal markets. Greater competition in postal markets will be a spur for efficiency, and that should bring benefits for consumers in terms of choice, price and quality while universal service obligations are maintained.
We are giving the commission a free hand to decide what changes to the reserved area are compatible with the provision of a universal postal service. The commission may come forward with a recommendation for 50p or 150 grams, as proposed in these amendments. They may find in favour of a completely different figure. Under the existing postal services directive, the reserved area can be set only at a level which is necessary to ensure the maintenance of the universal service. I am sure that the commission will do a thorough job and will consult all interested parties. We should leave it to get on with its work and not seek to prejudge it. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness, having made her point, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the House unfortunately had to listen again not only to me but to virtually the same answer from the Minister, I shall certainly not inflict any more upon noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Licences: conditions and other provisions]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) A licence shall include provisions covering the following matters—

(a) minimum standards for collection and delivery of relevant postal packets no less demanding than the quality service standards as in effect on the day on which this Act is passed, including a single collection and delivery every day;

(b) compliance with the standards set by Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament dated 15th December 1997 and any amendment, modification, or re-enactment thereof for the time being and from time to time in force;

(c) delivery of mail to the front door of the building to which it is addressed (or, in the case of a building in multiple occupation, to suitable postal boxes at or within the front door) or to such other place as the occupiers may revocably consent.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a new amendment. I thought it necessary to introduce it at this late stage because, having looked at the report of the Committee stage debates, I found that many of the answers to amendments that I had tabled in Committee were quite unsatisfactory.
To do the Government credit, they were not unsympathetic to those amendments; indeed, they seem to have agreed with the principles contained in them. However, their response was to say that the matter is best dealt with by the regulator in the licence or licences that he will grant to the Post Office or other operators. The Minister said that it would be for the regulator to ensure that the matter is covered by the licence.
I do not agree with that abdication of the Government's responsibility to provide a full and explicit legislative framework for the new, major commercial concern. In addition, although the Government accept the principle that certain commitments and constraints must be imposed on the Post Office, I do not agree with their decision that those commitments and constraints shall be determined by the regulator, independent of Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government have made available a pro forma, or skeleton, of the general form of licence that they expect the regulator to grant. I am grateful to the Minister for sending it to noble Lords who intervened in this debate on the previous occasion and who had not had the benefit of seeing the draft licence. Quite properly, the licence will be subject to detailed negotiations with the intended licensees, and licences may vary between individual licensees. I agree that that is absolutely as far as the Government can go at this stage.
However, I am troubled by matters which I raised in Committee and which the Minister agreed were relevant to the running of the new Post Office but which he is not prepared to provide for in primary legislation. I believe that that is quite an important constitutional matter. In our system of primary legislation a Bill goes through three stages in both Houses of Parliament. Then we have secondary legislation, where the Government legislate by what is, in effect, ministerial decree. There are statutory instruments, which are approved by Parliament in a more perfunctory positive or negative procedure. And, now, the Government are introducing what I consider to be a new legislative device over which Parliament will have no control once the Bill is passed.
Instead of legislating on matters which the Minister accepts are important and relevant, he is leaving that to a paid appointee—the regulator. I hasten to say that I do not impugn the integrity or good intentions of the first or, indeed, any subsequent incumbent of that post. However, it is not acceptable that the Government should agree that certain essential matters are required in the public interest to govern the conduct of the Post Office when other licensees and the regulator (for his own reasons) may fail or decline to do so. Where would we be then? There would be no statute and no condition in the licence.
Therefore, I have extracted from the debates and ministerial answers in Committee three of the matters which it is essential that the licensee should cover. I have proposed in the same general terms that the draft licence should state that the regulator shall be required to include them in the licences.
The first is that the operators shall provide no less of a service than at present. In response to my Amendment No. 4 in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said:
"It is certainly the Government's expectation that the standards set in the licence will be at least as demanding as the current quality service targets".—[Official Report, 816/00; col. 1258.]
I have incorporated those remarks word for word in paragraph (a). I assume that the wording must be entirely acceptable to the Government, because it is what the Minister said.
The second item requires the regulator to conform to the current and any future EC directive on postal services. The EC directive was referred to more than once in Committee. I regret that, due to pressure of work, I have been unable to find all the references, but I should like to mention one. When rejecting amendments to Clause 4, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that,
"amendments which go beyond the European directive are inappropriate".—[Official Report, 8/6/00; col. 1265.]
That is a clear indication from the Government that the regulator is to conform to the directive, as paragraph (b) provides. Incidentally, I find it paradoxical that I, of all people, should be accused by the Government of gold-plating an EC directive, but never mind. It was a new experience and I quite enjoyed it at the time. I shall make a careful note of the Minister's words, as I have no doubt that I shall wish to remind the Government of them on many future occasions.
Paragraph (c) would ensure that the Post Office, or another licensee, could not attempt to force customers to have a mailbox at their front gate, in the American style, and should make deliveries to the front door, as we are all used to. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told your Lordships:
"For most people in the UK the normal point of delivery is the front door and we expect that to continue to be the case. If a universal service provider were to propose such a radical departure, we would expect the commission to take a close interest in the matter and to act accordingly. In other words, that is one of the conditions that could well be in the licence. I am sure that the commission, acting responsibly, will seek to ensure either that it does not happen or that if it happens a suitable penalty is imposed".—[Official Report, 8/6/00; col. 1290.]
If we substitute the words "shall be included" for the words "could well be included", we can be sure that the licence will include what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, agrees is our expectation of delivery to the front door. There would be no chance of the regulator being persuaded to allow that provision to be dropped in return for some other promise by the licensee.
The Government's job is to govern, not to shuffle off some of their responsibilities to outside agencies, especially ones not directly answerable to Parliament

1097
on a day-to-day basis. The amendment would require the regulator, subject to a fairly wide discretion on the wording, to grant licences on some minimal and non-controversial terms that the Government have conceded are essential.
I could have made the amendment longer and included more conditions, but I restricted myself to the items that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he was certain would be in the Bill. On that basis, the amendment should be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I support my noble friend on this important amendment, which would clarify the starting position for the commission. I entirely agree with the Minster that we are talking about the delivery of letters alone.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment is about the important issue of the delivery of mail to the front door of the building. It would avoid giving the licensee a perfect opportunity to adopt an American-style system, which would be highly detrimental to the service that we are used to in this country. I hope that the Minister accepts that.
Paragraph (b) relates to compliance with the standards set by EC directive 97/67. As my noble friend said, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said in Committee that it would be wrong to go beyond the directive. However, the directive is fairly wishy-washy and, under the principle of subsidiarity, it gives member states responsibility for specific items. I agree with that principle.
Paragraph 32 of the directive states:
"Whereas national quality standards consistent with Community standards must be determined by Member States".
That clearly gives us scope to go beyond the directive, as does Article 16 in Chapter 6, which states:
"Member States shall ensure that quality-of-service standards are set and published in relation to universal service in order to guarantee a postal service of good quality".
It does not go on to say what a postal service of good quality is. It leaves that to member states.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was not as forthcoming as usual on the specifics of these issues. It is clearly for member states to decide.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment relates to the quality of service standards in effect on the day on which the Act is passed. While I support the principle of what my noble friend has said, I have to raise a question about the standards today. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, said in Committee:
"Where I live in Scotland, post is not delivered until after 1 p.m. and often after 2 p.m.".—[Official Report. 8/6/00; col. 1264.]
All that I can say to the noble Lady is, "Lucky her to get a delivery at all." When I am in London, I live in the borough of Hammersmith where the postal service is notoriously erratic. On a number of occasions, deliveries have not been made until about 3 p.m. and over the past three or four weekends there
1098
has been no delivery on Saturday. I thought that Ministers had gone into the post office to sabotage my mail so that I would not get any parliamentary papers—but I would not accuse them of that in real life.
Wondering how best to tackle the problem, I rang the manager of the post office in Hammersmith. It seems to have a peculiar telephone system with a two-way button. For half the day, they let the telephone ring and ring without answering it and for the other half of the day they switch the button to the other side to make the telephone constantly engaged.
After great perseverance and about a dozen attempts, I finally got hold of the manager on Monday. He did not recognise my address as being within his area, but he found somebody who knew that it was. He blithely told me that of course I did not have any deliveries on Saturday and I was not going to have any on that day—Monday—but there was a chance that I would get a delivery the following day.
That is a wholly unsatisfactory level of service. I told the man that my parliamentary papers had not arrived and that at meetings in the House I had been the only person not to have received them—and those present included people from Scotland. He was a little perplexed and I got a delivery before 8 a.m. the next morning, for which I was very grateful. The service has become a bit more erratic again since then. What remedies are there now for such a diabolical level of service and what remedies will there be in the future? What will the penalties be for not delivering on time? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said:
"In my experience the most important factor was to receive the first post early in the morning by 8 a.m. or 8.30".—[Official Report. 8/6/00; col. 1265.]
Would the Minister make it a condition of a licence that deliveries in urban areas, including the very remote and distant borough of Hammersmith in London, are made by 9 a.m.?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I have enough work to do without spending my weekends sabotaging the mail of other Peers. There appear to be better ways of spending one's weekend.
It is not a new legislative device for the regulator. This Bill sets up an independent system of regulation now seen in many areas, not least in the utilities legislation passed by the previous administration. The Secretary of State will continue to be answerable to Parliament as regards postal matters. The essence of what the noble Lord said is that we shall not have good performance until we have real competition. That is what the regulator has to do. Once we have that, then all the penalties can be included and standards raised. That is the clear job of the regulator in the circumstances.
I suspect that these amendments are designed to probe the Government's intentions on licensing and raise a number of points which have already been discussed in this House. There is not much between the

1099
noble Baroness and myself on the points that she raised. There are differences as to the best way in which the assurances she seeks may he achieved.
I take the three points in turn. As regards her first point about minimum standards, the Government fully expect that the Post Office, as and when it has a licence, will have to deliver the same, if not better, standards of delivery. It will be a matter for the regulator to determine exactly what those standards are. The regulator is best placed to do that. Equally, it is also important that the regulator may wish not to impose such onerous requirements on a new entrant who might be operating in a niche market. It may be entirely appropriate in those circumstances to have a different set of service standards. This flexibility would be precluded by the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness.
I now move to the noble Baroness's third point. We debated at some length in Committee the pros and cons of delivery being to a fixed point. I can offer the noble Baroness the same assurance that there is no government proposal, nor on the part of the Post Office, that delivery points should be established other than those that exist now; for example, to follow the manner of the United States or New Zealand. The amendment proposed here also appears restrictive. For example, it would prevent deliveries to the service bay of a building. Neither does it contain the sensible part of the noble Baroness's previous amendment that the postman would not have to deliver where delivery to the front door would place him or her in danger. I make it absolutely clear that it is not for the licensee to decide the standards, but for the regulator. He has clear responsibilities at the service level.
The second point made by the noble Baroness has some merit. However, it merely states the position in law as it stands. The European directive has direct effect here. The UK is a member state and in these circumstances it has to comply with the requirements. Therefore, on first inspection I do not believe that an amendment would be necessary. However, if she is prepared to withdraw the amendment I shall be happy to take the second point away and consider whether an amendment could be usefully added to the Bill at Third Reading. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may clarify the position as regards the answers to my questions. Is the Minister saying that he cannot help me on the present position, let alone on the overall situation because that will be determined by the regulator?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, at present the Post Office has a system of dealing with customer complaints, but there are no formal remedies. Under the Bill the quality of service targets will be set as a condition of the licence. The regulator, the commission and the council will monitor these closely. The commission can issue enforcement orders requiring standards to be met and, if necessary, impose
1100
financial penalties on the licence holder. Under these new arrangements there is the possibility of taking sanctions if performance rather than standards fails.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I understand very well what the Minister said, particularly about flexibility; namely, that the regulator may wish to make the licence slightly different for new entrants to the market. We on this side of the House certainly would not wish to do anything that interfered with fair competition because that would be totally inappropriate. I presume it is right that if for some reason the regulator was acting in an inappropriate way—not that I suggest he would—there would be some way of handling that situation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of a licence may, in particular, require the acceptance of payment for services provided under the licence by cash, cheque, debit card or credit card.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even at this late stage of the Bill this is an unashamed probing amendment, so the Minister can relax to some extent. It was put to me in conversation recently that it is quite extraordinary in this day and age and with the future Post Office being an all-singing, all-dancing, interwired, Internet and inter-anything organisation, or whatever you like to call it, that modern methods of payment have been unacceptable until now. I am quite prepared for the Minister to tell me that this is the wrong place in the Bill to introduce this amendment because it should not be concerned with a licence. However, I would like him to tell me that in future people will be able to pay, for example, for their road fund licence, TV licence, utility bills, etcetera, with either a debit or credit card. That is the sole purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. I understand his views about this matter, which are not totally in keeping with the modern way of doing things. However, the noble Lord's attempt to set this provision into the Bill is out of proportion to the specific issue that he has raised. It must be remembered that the licences issued by the post services commission are potentially for the entire range of postal services.
The kinds of conditions that the commission might set under its powers in subsection (3) of this clause could run across the whole gamut of the services provided under the licence. In particular, the commission may well set quality of service standards and performance targets for the delivery of mail, a subject which is obviously very dear to the hearts of enormous numbers of users of the postal service.
But we see no need to specify in the Bill the topics on which the commission may lay down conditions. We have required the commission to exercise its function in a manner it considers best to further the interests of users promoting competition wherever appropriate, as

1101
detailed in Clause 5 of the Bill. The commission will have to consider many important issues. There are many potential conditions that the commission will want to set in the licence. Therefore, I see no point in singling out the means of payment as the second potential condition mentioned on the face of the Bill.
The commission may well decide for itself to lay down requirements about the way in which the postal services might be paid for. It may be that the consumer council for postal services would wish to make representations on that point. If the commission decided that such requirements were appropriate, it could do so within the powers already contained in Clause 13(3) after consulting the prospective licensee as required by subsection (4) of this clause. Above all, this is a commercial matter for the Post Office and the future post office company. There are significant charges for each credit card transaction. For many of the comparatively low value transactions that take place in post offices it may not be worth while. Having said that, other commercial arguments could be applied.
I have a certain sympathy with the amendment, but I believe that to put this particular requirement into the Bill would be inappropriate. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for "a certain sympathy with the amendment". My amendment was deliberately drawn widely so that those items of lesser value can continue to be paid for in cash or perhaps by cheque. At the moment, as noble Lords know, everything has to be paid for by cash or cheque. When I paid for my road fund licence recently in a village not far from Taunton, the good lady behind the counter in the franchised post office, blinked when I produced the money in one pound coins. I believe that I should not have needed to do that.
I wonder how far the "certain sympathy" expressed by the Minister extends. Does he foresee a time when the larger transactions, like the ones that I mentione—TV licence, road fund licence, utility bills and so on—will be paid for by credit card, or will the damning hand of the Treasury zero in on that? As the Minister clearly said, a charge is levied by credit card companies. Against that, there is the fact that this new all-singing, all-dancing Post Office will, according to the PIU report, also incorporate a new bank with the working title of the universal bank. Presumably, that will not only issue credit and debit cards, but will also have to accept credit and debit cards. Does the Minister agree that that is a future that we can see within the environs of the Post Office? I hope he does. I see him nodding. Is that a significant nod, or a "taking in what I am saying" nod?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in relation to the charges for credit cards, most organisations will always want to resist that unless they see good competitive reasons for doing otherwise. As
1102
competition rises and as opportunities present themselves, I believe that people will look at that differently. In either case, it is clearly a commercial decision of the Post Office. To the extent that the regulator feels that action has not been taken that is appropriate to the needs of the users, he should lay down the regulations. My point is that it is one of many standards and, therefore, is appropriately left to him.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in that case, I am delighted that we have had this debate. Clearly, the regulator will read what has been said and make up his own mind about the necessity for my suggestion. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Duties in relation to public post offices]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 28, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert ("any postal services are provided directly to the public (whether or not together with other services)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Review and information]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 29, line 5, at end insert (", including comparative information on the efficiency and economy of the provision of such services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some noble Lords will recall that a fortnight or so ago we discussed this amendment in Committee and the Minister, to my pleasure, said that he would take the amendment away and consider it. I presume that his consideration has led him to table Amendment No. 11, with which my amendment has been grouped. I dare say that I shall find out in due course. I have been asked to table this amendment by the Periodical Publishers Association of which I am a vice-president. I have that interest to declare.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, quite rightly pointed out that it was possible to send magazines abroad in bulk for posting to individual addresses in this country. In my days as a magazine publisher, that was one of the devices that we used. We sent magazines abroad in bulk to Holland, where they were redirected back to our readers in this country. We also had an international magazine with a world-wide readership which, rather surprisingly, we had posted in Singapore. Quite often, readers received it from Singapore, but not always. That is one way of dealing with bulk deliveries of magazines. We would prefer to use the Post Office, as the most sensible and readily accessible means of delivery; that is, if reasonable arrangements can be made with the Post Office especially as regards charges.
Earlier the Minister said that he did not want to hear arguments repeated that he had heard before in Committee. I can assure him that I have no intention of repeating those arguments, because he will have read them carefully and committed them to memory. I have just one point to add. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said earlier, warm words sometimes cool with the passage of time. I do not know whether that is a

1103
quotation, but that is what he meant. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, repeated that notion too. That is an important aspect of this part of the Bill as, in Committee, the Minister pointed out that the commission would be prepared to see benchmarking introduced as a means of dealing with what I want to see done. That is all very well as far as the present commission is concerned—doubtless it is quite prepared to do that—but there is no certainty that future commissions will be of a like mind. The warm words, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, intimated, will cool; so I would like to see this provision in the Bill.
Lastly, I want to say a fleeting word about amendment No. 11. I find it welcome, but I find it not wholly satisfactory. I hope that my noble friend is not offended by the coolness of my welcome; it is not meant to be cold, but cool. I do not like the words,
"considers it practicable to do so",
which leaves the commission to make up its own mind whether or not it will do what we all want it to do. This is a situation in which the commission should be under an obligation to do something, rather than to consider whether or not it is practicable. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Like him, I do not want to repeat matters mentioned earlier. In Committee I supported the noble Lord and I had tabled two similar amendments— Amendments Nos. 38 and 39—which were somewhat wider in their application. I remember the noble Lord saying that he was more modest than I was and I made the point that I was not quite so modest. As I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, said that we were getting into a discussion about who was the more modest. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Amendment No. 11 could be described as even more modest than Amendment No. 10. So I feel that Amendment No. 11 is pie in the sky and does not do what we would like it to do.
Given that the Minister's noble friend is such a modest man, and his amendment is sufficiently modest, I hope the Minister will feel it possible to accept Amendment No. 10. He has so far found it difficult to accept amendments. But it always goes down a treat to accept an amendment from one's noble friend.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, again, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, made a compelling case for his amendment, as he did in Committee. I believe there was a suggestion from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that the word "effectiveness" should be included. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, obviously thought that was one "e" too many and that the amendment was fine as it was.
The Minister's response that, "it is a helpful suggestion" is so full of cop-outs that, if I worked for him and he instructed me to do something, I would be tempted to say, "In so far as it is practical for me to do so and all other things notwithstanding, I shall make
1104
my best endeavours so to do". I am sure that it is practical to accept this amendment. There is plenty of information available. The commission will be in a good position to collect that information. I see no reason why the Minister should not accept Amendment No. 10, but I suspect that he will not. At least he has shown a degree of willingness in bringing forward his own, perhaps overly-carefully drafted, amendment, and for that he should be commended.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am rather confused by Amendment No. 11. This "overly-carefully drafted amendment", as my noble friend described it—so far as I can work out, because I cannot put my hand on the precise clause in the Bill—is an exact repetition of what is already in the Bill, whereas Amendment No. 10 is different and new. Therefore, if we are talking of these amendments as being in the alternative, I shall certainly go along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I can make a preliminary comment and point out that, in this race for moderation in which we are involved, Clause 44(1) starts by saying,
"So far as the Commission considers it practicable to do so".
Amendment No. 10 is therefore also constrained, I believe rightly, by the practicability of the specific case.
I shall respond to my noble friend's amendment and then speak to Amendment No. 11. The underlying purpose of both amendments is to require the commission to collect information so that it will be able to compare the efficiency and economy of the Post Office with other postal operators. As I said in Committee, I am sympathetic with that principle because I believe benchmarking is vital to those sorts of operation. I therefore brought forward the government Amendment No. 11.
As can be seen, the wording of our amendment is somewhat more detailed than that of my noble friend. That is because the government amendment strives to define exactly what comparative information is. However, the purpose behind both amendments is identical.
It should be noted that the requirement as set out in our amendment, and also in that of my noble friend, still leaves the commission with some discretion over whether or not to collect such comparative information. That is because the commission may not always feel that such a comparison is useful. Also, the commission does not have the power to require such information from unlicensed operators operating outside the licensed area who are not providing the universal service. It can only request the information. Therefore we cannot put an absolute duty upon the commission to gather the information.
I am sure that no one, least of all the Opposition, would want the commission to have the power to require information from people operating completely outside the licensed area. Our amendment is therefore important, but I hope also practical. In those

1105
circumstances I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment and the House to accept Amendment No. 11.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he can help me. He drew my attention to Clause 44(1) which, in terms of paragraphs (a) and (b), is almost identical to Amendment No. 11 which will be a new subsection (2A) inserted between subsections (2) and (3). The only difference is the part which says,
"which enables comparisons to be made between the efficiency and economy of different postal operators".
All the rest is already contained in subsection (1). That makes the Minister's amendment tautologous to a great extent and therefore unnecessary. That is why I prefer the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am glad it was the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who used the word "unnecessary" in this context. I believe it takes the issue one stage further. There is an original point which covers this, perhaps not as fully as the noble Lord would like. We were hoping to take it one stage further in terms of collecting information from abroad. However, if it is now felt that that is unnecessary, I do not want to push the point. It will be for the Opposition to say that it is unnecessary.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was described as "modest", which I found very pleasant. I am also extremely cautious. Insisting upon my amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would clearly like me to do, would be to push caution to a dangerous limit.
I make only one point. It is in my mind to table an amendment at Third Reading which removes the words,
"So far as the Commission considers it practicable",
from this part of the Bill. The Minister drew my attention to another place where I can remove it as well; namely, at the beginning of Clause 44. That is not a threat. But I shall consider that possibility carefully over the coming weeks. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 29, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) So far as the Commission considers it practicable to do so with a view to facilitating the exercise of its functions, it shall, in particular, collect information which enables comparisons to be made between the efficiency and economy of different postal operators (whether in the United Kingdom, other member States or elsewhere).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Exercise of functions: general]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 35, line 1, at end insert ("and
(iv) a committee for England.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13; they are part and parcel of the same thing.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Miller withdrew a similar amendment on the basis that the Minister would look at the matter again because there was what he called "strong feeling" in the Chamber on the subject. With her agreement I am returning to the charge. When I read Hansard I detected a misunderstanding of what I in particular and many others were actually intending by my noble friend's amendment at that time.
Clause 54 concerns the function of the new Post Office consumer body, and subsection (4) talks about what arrangements there will be for that; namely, that committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland shall be established and that area sub-committees may be established as well.
All well and good; I would be the first to agree with that. It is clearly up to the council to sub-regionalise, if it wants to. As the Minister said, recent history should not be lightly set aside. Again I agree with the noble Lord. It is when the clause considers England that the snag occurs. Here the formulation is much weaker and the Bill says that the council "may"—I stress that word—
"establish one or more committees for, or for any areas within, England".
For many years now I have listened to, argued about and, on occasion, defended the use of the word "may" rather than "shall" in legislation, especially where the draftsman has used "may" in such a way that it really means "shall". This is not such an occasion. Here the meaning is totally transparent. There is to be a different treatment in England as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Why?
In Committee, the Minister said,
"From a practical point of view, England is a larger country than the others and representation by a number of committees for different areas within England may be more appropriate than a single regional committee".—[Official Report, 8/6/00; col. 13431.]
Yes, of course; but that is no reason why, as in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, there should not be a committee with sub-committees for the various regions. After all, Scotland is a large landmass. I could get into trouble with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who—perhaps fortunately for me—is not at present in the Chamber, if I called it a "region". However, it is certainly a large landmass. It is quite likely that sub-committees will be set up in Scotland. Therefore, why not here?
The Minister went on to say that Clause 54 also requires the council to maintain at least one office in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is true, but it also allows the English office to be in limbo with no committee at all to support it. The latter is very unlikely to happen, but, under the phraseology of the Bill, it could just occur. No doubt the Minister

1107
will call this one of my "extreme examples"; indeed, for the avoidance of doubt, it was meant to be an extreme example. I do not believe that that could happen but, in theory, it could.
I am sure that the Minister has thought again about this, as he said he would. I hope that his thoughts are rather more positive than those he expressed in Committee. I trust that he now agrees that there must he a committee for England. I know that between the Committee stage and today the Minister sent my noble friend Lady Miller a letter. I do not know whether the noble Lord copied it to me, but I certainly did not receive a copy until this morning. Doubtless he will base his speech on the arguments set out in his letter. If so, I must warn him that I have now read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested the contents of that letter. Therefore, it will be very much easier for me to respond to him when I conclude the debate. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. We had a rather unsatisfactory debate in Committee. I cannot remember whether it was the Minister or his colleague who insisted on answering rather a different question to the one we had raised. It was not about the number of sub-committees and whether or not we should decide how many regional committees there should be for England but about an extraordinarily simple point—namely, why the word "shall" has been used in relation to the other parts of the United Kingdom, while only the word "may" applies to England. It is as simple as that.
I see no reason why there should be conditionality attached to England but none attached to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I am not arguing for hundreds of committees to be set up; indeed, I am no great fan of committees. I just do not understand why there should be an element of conditionality attached to England and not to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I also support my noble friend's amendment. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but withdrew it although there was great support all around the House. The Minister acknowledged that fact and said that as there was such strong feeling, he would take the matter away for reconsideration. We had hoped that he would return to us and agree that as the word "shall" has been used in connection with the setting up of committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than the word "may", the same should also apply to a committee for England.
I can confirm that I received a letter from the Minister on this point, but, regrettably, I was away for the whole of last week and only read the letter this morning when I found it on my desk. That is when I showed the letter to my noble friend who has moved this amendment. I am most grateful to my noble friend for telling the House that he has gone into the detail so that, in winding-up the debate, he can rebut those arguments if that is the line that the Minister takes.
1108
It seemed to me that the Minister's argument was that, as this provision has appeared in other Bills, we must have consistency. The situation is becoming quite bad. If this continues, we shall really be in trouble. Therefore, I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say in response to the Minister.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Bill has been worded in this way because we felt that the decision as to whether to have a single committee for England, or a series of regional committees, should be left to the discretion of the council. It was always understood that it would be one or the other. As I said on 8th June, it is interesting to note that not one of the respondents to the consultation on the future committee structure for postal services suggested a single committee covering the whole of England. The reason for that is probably rather clear: the population of England is simply too large to be covered by one committee in this sense.
If the noble Lord's concern is that there would be no committee, I should be glad to take the matter away to ascertain whether we could introduce an amendment to make it clear that there would be either a committee, or regional committees, to meet the needs of the people. However, it is rather curious to propose an amendment that would require the committee to have a particular structure that was not what consumers wanted.
If the noble Lord is truly concerned that nothing would be set up, we can meet that need, while leaving it to the discretion of the council. We shall consider whether we can draft an amendment to achieve that end. However, if the aim is that there should be a single committee, we must resist that proposition on the grounds that we would like that decision to be left to the discretion of the council, after consultation with its users. Indeed, in that case, the council may decide upon something completely different.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that was the most refreshing answer that I have received from the Minister in several weeks. Indeed, the noble Lord is quite right: the concern is that, under the wording of the Bill, the council could have no committee in England at all. I have obviously been expressing myself extremely badly over a number of weeks; but, none the less, the Minister has finally got the point. That is no reflection on him. It is almost certainly a reflection on me.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister will look seriously at correcting what I see as a total anomaly in the Bill, and something that should not be allowed to happen. On that basis, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, should it prove necessary, I reserve the right the come back and chase the noble Lord a little on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Transfer to the Post Office company: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 82, line 38, at end insert —
("(4A) The Secretary of State may by order provide for any provision of sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in such cases or descriptions of case as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. This amendment provides for a new subparagraph to be inserted in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. It provides the Secretary of State with an order making power to disapply, or apply with modications, the provisions in subparagraphs (1) to (4) of that paragraph.
Schedule 3 sets out a series of supplementary provisions regarding the vesting of property, rights and liabilities of the Post Office in the Post Office company. The purpose of Schedule 3 is to ensure that the transition of the Post Office from statutory corporation to public limited company is seamless; that it does not disadvantage either the Post Office company or any third parties; that appropriate provision is made in relation to pension arrangements; and that any foreign property, rights and liabilities are transferred with effective legal force.
Paragraph 1 has the effect that anything done by or in relation to the Post Office is deemed to have been done by, or in relation to, the Post Office company. This includes legal proceedings and references in any agreement or document. The order making power could be used to deal with an instance where it is inappropriate for a reference to the Post Office in a current document to be construed as a reference to the Post Office company after vesting day. The power will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 15 is clarificatory. It spells out that only sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) of paragraph 1 to Schedule 3 are subject to any provision made by or under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 82, line 39, leave out ("This paragraph is") and insert ("Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Government holding in the Post Office company and certain subsidiaries]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 40, line 29, at beginning insert ("receives,").
Page 40, line 29, leave out ("transports") and insert ("conveys").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 65 [Restriction on issue of shares to third parties]:
Lord Clarke of Hampstead Lord Clarke of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 17A:
Leave out Clause 65.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as usual I declare my interest as a former postman and a former official of the Union of Post Office Workers.
Clause 65 concerns shares, share dealings, issue rights and a number of other matters including the issue of shares to the Treasury, the Secretary of State or to any of their nominees.
My amendment seeks to delete the whole clause and the authority it contains. My views on the Government's plans to create a share based Post Office company are known to many noble Lords. I shall not repeat all of my concerns about the Bill that I have mentioned on a number of other occasions. The amendment enables me to place on record my sadness at what the Government are doing to a valuable and socially useful publicly owned asset.
I do not hold a starry-eyed sentimental view of the jolly postman on a snow covered path with a robin on his shoulder struggling through the elements to deliver the essential Christmas cards. I am concerned about the future of an organisation that has worked efficiently for 350 years and currently shifts in excess of 56 million items a day.
I was concerned at the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has experienced difficulties with his local post office in Hammersmith. I could give him some good advice. As a former postman in Hampstead, which had more Peers and Members of Parliament to the square mile than anywhere else in the country, I know just how effective parliamentary interference in the daily running of a post office can be. Perhaps the noble Earl and I can discuss that matter later.
A share based Post Office company is unnecessary. An alternative has been proposed, the independent publicly owned corporation (IPOC). It has been said that IPOC would not be acceptable to potential partners in joint ventures. However, I remind noble Lords that that has not prevented negotiations with Deutsche Post or the joint venture with the Singapore postal authority. There is no substance in the statement that an IPOC could not do the job just as efficiently.
At an earlier stage of the Bill I asked the Minister to say whether the Government would place a limit on the amount of the share base that could be transferred in a joint venture. The Government have said publicly that the organisation will remain 100 per cent publicly owned but have at the same time said that a transfer of shares can take place. That is a contradiction. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having had the courtesy to concede that point in this House on an earlier occasion. However, I understand that the Secretary of State is still saying that it will remain 100 per cent publicly owned.
In my view Clause 65 will enable a future government to adopt a fast track procedure to extend share ownership to individuals and institutions. I am aware that the Secretary of State has said repeatedly that further legislation will be needed to extend share ownership. I believe that secondary legislation will be needed before such an extension of share ownership could take place. However, I am a relatively new Member of the House and I may not have the terminology correct. However, as I say, Clause 65 will enable a fast track procedure to be adopted. I consider that that is wrong. Much as I would love to think that we shall always have a Labour Government, I am not daft enough to think that a future government of a different persuasion would not wish to pursue a policy of wholesale privatisation. I do not agree with that view but I respect it.
When the Bill first arrived in your Lordships' House I said how sad I was to take issue with the Government which I support and for which I have worked hard for many years. Over the past few weeks that sadness has deepened because I realise that nothing I can say today will nullify the concept of share ownership in the Bill. I ask my noble friend the Minister, probably for the final time, to accept the amendment and allow the Post Office the freedoms contained in the Bill without the need for a share base for our great publicly owned institution. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord's views on retaining the Post Office in public ownership are well known. However, the amendment would do nothing to serve his purpose.
Clause 65 contributes to the policy on government ownership of the new Post Office company, and helps us deliver the promise made at the time of the publication of the Post Office Reform White Paper that the Government,
"would not seek to dispose of Post Office shares without further primary legislation",—[Official Report. Commons, 8/7/99; col. 1177.]
except where a sale or exchange of equity would be in the interest of the Post Office to cement a joint venture or strategic alliance with another company—in which event the approval of the Houses of Parliament would be required.
Clause 65 imposes firm restrictions on the issue of shares and share rights of the Post Office company and "relevant subsidiaries"—relevant subsidiaries being those which are involved in the core business of the Post Office company.
Deleting this clause would remove the restriction on the issuing of shares and share rights leaving the Post Office company (and the relevant subsidiaries) free to issue shares as they will. I do not think that this is the effect that the noble Lord is seeking. On those grounds I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I can try to reassure the noble Lord that the Bill does not enable us simply to sell Post Office shares. Clause 65 is a clear restriction on the issue of shares and share rights. Clause 66 prevents those to whom those shares and share rights have initially been issued
1112
from disposing of the shares and share rights. Only if the procedure in Clause 67 is used can shares and share rights be issued or disposed of to a third party.
Clause 67 is, of course, pretty restrictive over what can take place, and it includes what has become known as the "triple lock"; namely, that there can be no issue or disposal of shares unless the following conditions are met. First, it has been done to cement a commercial alliance, to use the words of the statute,
"a joint venture, or another arrangement for working together with another person",
and the Post Office company considers that the arrangement is in its commercial interest, and has recommended the issue or disposal to the Secretary of State. Secondly, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the share transaction is for the purpose of securing the commercial arrangement and it is in the interest of the Post Office company. Thirdly, resolutions must have been passed in both Houses approving the issue or disposal of the shares or share rights.
I also point out that the Bill ensures that not only are the words of the Government's promise of last July—that there should be no disposal of Post Office shares etc—fulfilled; but also that the spirit of that promise is fulfilled. The Bill ensures that the promise is not undermined by the transfer of all the key businesses to a subsidiary, leaving the subsidiary to be sold. We have plugged that loophole by subjecting the relevant subsidiaries to the same restrictions on share disposal.
There is therefore a very tight grip over the disposal of shares and share rights, while giving the Post Office company real commercial freedom for those joint ventures and partnerships which it needs to compete successfully in the global postal market. To deprive the Post Office of those commercial opportunities at a time when we are seeing rapid consolidation and alliances being formed would be to condemn it to being a very minor player in what is becoming a market of substantial companies.
Share disposal or swaps are not the only route to greater commercial freedom. Our policy is not to stand in the way of sensible commercial activities and deals. The Post Office company will be able to develop through in-house investment; it will be able to acquire third parties along the lines of the acquisition of German Parcel last year; and, as envisaged in the Post Office alliance with the Dutch Post Office and the Singapore Post, which is currently under consideration, it will be able to cement deals via the transfer of assets by each of the parties into a new, jointly-owned organisation.
As responsible shareholders, the Government would not want the Post Office company's assets to be dissipated improperly, but we would want to allow good commercial deals, and we shall look at the memorandum and articles of association of the Post Office company to give the Secretary of State powers to control major asset movements and disposals.

1113
In summary, we are not looking for freedom for the Government to do what they will with the Post Office and the future Post Office company; we are seeking the freedom to enable the organisation to compete effectively in a fast-moving market place, with the same opportunities as its competitors to do deals which are in its commercial interests.
Of course there must be safeguards in place to protect the taxpayers' interest. The Post Office company will be owned by the people of this country. But I have no doubt that the greater commercial freedom will benefit consumers, employees and the UK as a whole. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that his amendment does not achieve his purpose and that the Government's intentions are the best way forward for the Post Office company, its users and its employees. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, nothing that I have said during the passage of this Bill—be it at Second Reading, in Committee or as recently as today—has suggested that I would in any way want to restrict the Post Office from having commercial freedom. I have spent a large part of my working life arguing for that commercial freedom because of the need for the Post Office to compete with the various organisations which are in business to try to take away what I would call the "cream" work of the Post Office—not the rural areas, to which the Post Office has a universal obligation to deliver.
My noble friend has exposed my limited knowledge of the procedures of the House. He is right; my amendment would not achieve what I set out to do. With reluctance, I shall have to learn this lesson. I do not expect that I shall burden your Lordships' House at Third Reading with another stilted and incoherent request for the Government to think again on this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFIABLE TRANSACTIONS
(".—(1) Where the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary enters into a notifiable transaction it must, as soon as practicable after the terms of that transaction have been agreed, issue a disclosure notice in accordance with this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section "notifiable transaction" means any acquisition or disposal of any undertaking or interest in any undertaking by the Post Office company or any relevant subsidiary which, if the acquisition or disposal was made by a listed company, would be a transaction in respect of which that company would need to give notification or make an announcement in accordance with the listing rules.
(3) A disclosure notice must include the same information regarding the transaction to which it relates as any notification or announcement under the listing rules would be required to include if the transaction was an acquisition or disposal which had been made by a listed company.
(4) A disclosure notice shall—

(a) be published in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette; and

(b) be published or disseminated in any other manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

(5) In this section—

"listed company" means a company any class of whose securities have been admitted to the official list; and

"listing rules" and "official list" have the same meaning as in Part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment replaces a similar one that I moved in Committee. On the first occasion in Committee, I mentioned that I was prompted to move the amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, had said at Second Reading that he thought that this may be something that needed doing.
I have spoken on this issue not once, but twice. On the first day of the Committee stage, being unsatisfied with the Minister's response, I attempted to divide the Committee, but because there was not a quorum the Committee was counted out under Standing Order 57. This meant that the amendment was brought forward as the first item of business on the second and final day of the Committee stage. That means that I have now made two speeches on precisely the same point. Certainly I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time than is necessary by repeating the same arguments.
Put very simply, the Post Office is to become a public limited company. The objective of this change is to enable it to become a more commercial trading company in a highly competitive market. The Post Office is a huge organisation and, it is to be hoped, freed of the dead hand of Whitehall, it will become even larger. Inevitably it will become involved in mergers, take-overs, partnerships and joint ventures of all kinds.
Any publicly-quoted company is required to keep its shareholders and potential investors informed of such transactions—even while they are in progress. At the first, aborted, debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, rejected the amendment on the grounds that,
"No other commercial company would be required to publish its intentions to acquire or dispose of an undertaking in the same way".
With respect to the noble Lord, that is not entirely correct. But, on reflection, it is possible that my amendment in its previous form could have been interpreted as being too prescriptive. I believe I said that.
So, ever helpful, I have altered the form of the amendment in a way that makes it clear that the Post Office plc is to be treated no differently and—no less importantly—to act no differently from any other publicly-quoted company.
In the same speech, the Minister also suggested that,
"The regulator will have adequate powers to ensure that the Post Office company does not abuse its market position without having to rely on such public notices of the Post Office company's intentions".— [Official Report, 8/6/00; cols. 1358 and 1359.].
I find that difficult to understand. The amendment seeks to ask the Post Office to make public announcements of certain transactions. But the Government, the only shareholder, said they would be satisfied if the regulator alone was told or was the one to decide when the deal would be made public. That would prevent the shareholder from exercising their influence.
We also recall the deal with the German Post Office, details of which came out too late for any public discussion.
During the second debate, the Minister repeated his argument that the form of my previous amendment went further than the requirements imposed on ordinary listed companies. Contrary to what the Minister said on that occasion, listed companies do not make announcements only after the deal is done; announcements are made when it is appropriate to do so—especially when people might buy or sell shares to their disadvantage in ignorance of a pending deal.
One of the purposes of the Stock Exchange regime is to prevent distortion of the market by speculative rumours. Announcements of pending bids, deals and negotiations—and, sad to say, failed bids and deals—appear in the press every day.
I wish to turn now to another serious and major point. I am informed from a very reliable source—and that was the National Audit Office; someone gave me some information—that it had reported to the Government advising that the disclosure regime for the Post Office should be the same as the one I am now proposing. In other words, it recommends what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Your Lordships may recall that I hinted at that when the amendment was before the Committee on the previous occasion. When I spoke then, I said that I had mentioned it to the Minister outside the Chamber. Inside the Chamber, I suggested that the Minister should bring forward an amendment himself. To my surprise, he has not done so. I therefore ask the Minister to tell your Lordships' House: first, is there such a report; secondly, am I correct in saying what the report recommends; thirdly, do the Government agree with the report; fourthly, if they do not, why not; and, fifthly, if they do agree, will they accept my amendment or undertake to bring forward an amendment to the same effect?
I do not necessarily expect the Minister to give me an answer now—he may be able to—but, if he is unable to give me one, I should like an assurance from him that he will tell me the Government's intentions before Third Reading. This is something that I thought would have been dealt with. However, it has not.
What is at issue here is transparency—the same transparency as the Minister told your Lordships on 15th June, at column 1764 of Hansard, he had no quarrel with.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct; this was a point that I first raised when the Bill was debated at Second Reading. On these Benches—but probably not on the Conservative Benches—we
1116
have considerable sympathy with the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, for his amendment. The problem highlighted by the Conservative opposition amendment arises because the Government did not adopt the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that the Post Office should be transferred into an independently owned corporation, albeit with 100 per cent public ownership. At Second Reading I expressed my concern that there would be an unsatisfactory compromise between the structure of the Post Office that the Government were proposing—one with a limited degree of commercial freedom but nevertheless with some of the constraints that government ownership would still impose on it—and a structure giving the Post Office complete commercial freedom.
Where I part company with the noble Baroness is that I do not see a way in which what is proposed wi11 work unless the Government go back on their fundamental principle regarding the structure of the corporation. The various valiant attempts of the noble Baroness to produce an amendment that seeks to mirror the requirements of a listed company will not work with the form of structure that the Government have put in place.
I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness. However, I cannot support her amendment because I do not think it will work. We are left, reluctantly, to rely on whatever undertakings the Minister can give as to the powers that the Government will take to ensure that transparency occurs—in Committee the noble Lords went some way to meeting the points made by the noble Baroness—and to rely on any undertaking he can give us as to what he will expect the regulator to do, also with regard to transparency. I fear that we cannot have an amendment of this nature, largely because the Government have sold the pass on it by the structure of the corporation that they are putting in place.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the listing arrangements of the London Stock Exchange have to do with market transactions. This is about making certain that there are no distortions in the market. We are dealing here with a public company, a plc, but it is not listed on the Stock Exchange. That has to be a major consideration. The National Audit Office intends to produce a report, but the publication date is for the NAO to decide.
When we discussed the noble Baroness's previous amendment at the Committee stage I gave a commitment that if what we were proposing in respect of disclosure for the Post Office company fell in any way short of the London Stock Exchange disclosure requirements then we would look at the issue again. My intentions are exactly the same as the noble Baroness's in wishing to ensure transparency when the Post Office company makes a major acquisition or disposal, but while seeking to be fair to its competitors, I do not wish to see the Post Office company unfairly treated. The noble Baroness and I obviously do not have a meeting of minds on the means of achieving that end.

1117
Perhaps I may try again to persuade the noble Baroness that her proposed course is not the best means of securing our joint objective by explaining in more detail the implications of her proposed amendment. It takes the argument a stage forward that the noble Baroness now seeks to require an announcement to follow the agreement of the terms of the transaction. But her amendment would still place an unfair burden on the Post Office company. In particular, it should be noted that the scope of her amendment is such that it would catch very minor transactions which, for example, fall under the related party rules, set out in Chapter 11 of the Listing Rules, where the materiality threshold is extremely low or Class 3 transactions where the relevant percentage ratios are below 5 per cent.
The Listing Rules provide for listed companies also to consult the UK listing authority at an early stage about the application of the rules of Chapter 10—or Chapter 11—to a particular transaction. This is especially so where there is any doubt about the application of the rules, because in practice it is not always easy to tell whether a transaction falls within the rules or within a particular class. Furthermore, where the calculations which determine which, if any, class applies produce an anomalous result or the calculations are inappropriate to the sphere of activity of the listed company, the UK Listing Authority may disregard the calculation and may substitute other relevant indicators of size, including industry specific tests. For example, the consideration to market capitalisation test would not be applicable for the unlisted Post Office company.
Listed companies and their advisers often spend a fair amount of time in consultation with the UK Listing Authority as to the exact classification of a particular transaction, the precise interpretation of a rule or obtaining a company or transaction specific ruling on an ad hoc basis. There is therefore an element of flexibility in the operation of the Listing Rules which would not be available to the Post Office company. Instead it would be faced with deciding whether disclosure is required against a set of tests, incorporated by reference into the statute. The tests are therefore inflexible, especially as there is no possibility of the UK Listing Authority exercising its discretion to apply the rules in a manner appropriate to the Post Office company's business.
In any case, the analogy between the Post Office company and a public listed company does not really work when it comes to public announcements of information. In the case of the Post Office company, it is the public at large, as well as Parliament, who would be interested to know about the transaction, although, I think, not with any great urgency. In the case of a listed company, the information is announced to the market through the Company Announcements Office, with the intention that the listed company's shareholders, and potential shareholders, are made aware of the transaction as soon as possible so they can make an informed investment decision regarding the holding, buying or selling of the shares in the
1118
company. That is clearly not relevant in the case of the Post Office company. It will have no public shareholders who could be prejudiced by the lack of a full and immediate announcement. The purpose of any announcement would therefore be very different and the Listing Rules requirements are not therefore felt appropriate to be adopted.
Perhaps I may return to the noble Baroness's main theme. It would appear that the purpose of this transparency would mainly be to the benefit of the Post Office's competitors and, to some extent, the public at large. I have no difficulty with that idea. But at the same time I do not wish to subject the Post Office company to an unnecessarily onerous and inflexible regime which is designed to serve a very different purpose. The Post Office company's competitors and, more generally, the public would be kept informed about what the company was doing if it made a press announcement once a major acquisition or disposal had been agreed. That would be a far more practical arrangement than an announcement in the London Gazette and is the one which the Post Office has already adopted for its recent major acquisitions.
We want to achieve a sensible and practical regime for the Post Office company without detracting from the principle of transparency. If we enshrine disclosure requirements in the Bill which are linked to the Listing Rules, which contain a degree of discretion for the UK Listing Authority in their application and are regularly updated and amended and, in the light of recent developments, particularly concerning the London Stock Exchange's proposed merger, may well be subject to significant revision over the next few years, we would be setting in concrete in the Bill before the House a regime which may be totally inappropriate in a few years' time and which would be accompanied by none of the flexibility which is presently available to listed companies under the Listing Rules as applied and interpreted by the UK Listing Authority.
The way to achieve this flexibility is to make provision for the disclosure of information in the Post Office company's articles of association. We are currently discussing with the Post Office the draft memorandum and articles of association and we shall be discussing the inclusion of an article which requires the disclosure to the Secretary of State of information about major acquisitions and disposals relating to transactions involving 10 per cent or more of consolidated profits, turnover or gross assets. The provision will require disclosure within a specified period of business days after the transaction in question has been agreed, by way of a press announcement giving the prescribed information.
It is the Government's intention that the Post Office company should provide transparent information on completed acquisitions and disposals along the lines of the London Stock Exchange disclosure requirements, at least in terms of content, if not in method or timing. The Post Office is already following this policy for all but the most minor acquisitions and it will also provide summary information in its annual report and accounts. The inclusion of a disclosure requirement in

1119
the articles of association will ensure that the current policy of openness is enforceable by the shareholder—the Government.
It is intended that our proposals will achieve the transparency that the noble Baroness desires, but without inflexibly shackling the Post Office company to a regime which is intended for another purpose entirely and to which no competitor would be bound in the same way. I hope that the noble Baroness is both persuaded by my arguments and takes comfort from my assurances. I would ask her to withdraw her amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I take some comfort from the assurances given by the Minister. However, I must say that I have been having some difficulty in certain cases in drafting amendments that are technically acceptable or that can be met. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall; namely, that it may not be possible to draft an amendment that would be suitable. That may well be why the Government did not come back with their own amendment, as I suggested they should. I should have thought that that would have provided an answer.
Having said that, I asked the Minister certain questions and told him that I did not necessarily require the answers now. I should like to see the responses before we move on to Third Reading. However, the Minister was able to confirm that the National Audit Office had produced a report, although he did not know when it was going to be published. I should tell the Minister that I did not specifically ask when it was going to be published. I have the question in the notes for my speech, but I decided not to ask the question; I thought that would be more tactful. I have crossed it out to ensure that the Hansard writers do not put in something that I did not say in the Chamber.
However, the second question I put to the Minister is more important; namely, am I correct in saying that the report did agree with my amendment? That is what I have been told—that the National Audit Office had in fact recommended something similar, if not quite the same. I believe the NAO thought that my amendment was rather wider than it should have been. I agree. For that reason, I have returned with a somewhat narrower amendment. However, I understand that the NAO did agree that this is something that should be done.
The Minister has confirmed that there is to be a report. I should now like him to confirm whether the report did in fact recommend that this kind of disclosure should take place. The Minister does not need to reply to me now, but I should like to have a response to that question before we return to the Bill at Third Reading.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may make quite clear what I said. The National Audit
1120
Office intends to produce a report. As far as I am aware, no report is yet available. The NAO intends to produce one.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that is an extraordinary response. It is extraordinary because I have received information that I would have sight of the report. My researcher then took a telephone call to say that the Department of Trade and Industry did not wish me to see it. I do not know where the lines have crossed here, but that was exactly what I had heard; namely, that there was a report and that it made a recommendation. I spoke to two different people. However, I do not wish to say any more, other than to recommend that the Minister should make inquiries within his own department. If there is such a report, he will be in a position to respond to the remainder of my questions.
In view of this discussion, I see no purpose in taking the matter any further at this point. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I hope that we shall be able to have further communications before we return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 [Limit on loans and other arrangements with government]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 44, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of debt securities issued in pursuance of section 63 of this Act, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 19, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 44.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 amend Clause 71 by removing the Government's shareholding in the Post Office company and its wholly owned subsidiaries from the calculation of the Post Office company's indebtedness to government while retaining within the calculation any debt securities issued to government under Clause 63.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for prompting further consideration of the interaction of the old subsection (2)(f) in Clause 71 with the overall calculation of indebtedness determined by the clause. Following the debate in Committee on the noble Lord's amendment, we have reconsidered with our financial advisers the interaction of the Government's shareholding with the overall limit on indebtedness to government of the Post Office company. We have concluded that the inclusion of the Government's equity does not mirror normal commercial practice in determining the borrowing limit for a company. These amendments therefore remove the equity from the calculation while retaining within it debt securities issued to government under Clause 63.
Amendment No. 21 makes provision for any debt assumed by the Post Office company under Clause 74(1) to be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been assumed wholly in

1121
consideration of a loan made to the Post Office company of an amount equal to the principal sum payable under the debt. Clause 74 gives the Secretary of State powers for the restructuring of the balance sheet of the Post Office company by April 2002 by injecting debt to create a commercial level of gearing. If the debt were treated as having been assumed for no consideration, interest payments by the company could be considered a distribution and attract a tax charge. This amendment mirrors the existing provisions in Schedule 4 in respect of the treatment of shares and other securities for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts. It is intended to maintain a position of tax neutrality for the Post Office company during the restructuring of the company's balance sheet.
Amendment No. 44 provides that for the purposes of calculating total indebtedness of the Post Office Corporation under Clause 115, the Secretary of State will determine the sterling equivalent of any foreign currency debt. The amendment ensures that Clause 115 mirrors the provision in Clause 71(4) regarding the determination of the sterling equivalent of any foreign currency debt for the Post Office company. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It has persuaded me that there is such a thing as beginner's luck. Furthermore, wisdom is to be found in the proverb that, "Everything comes to he who waits". I waited eight hours—not to be called! However, it was well worth it.
Perhaps I may trespass a little on the time of the House. I was moved by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, spoke in support of his amendment. I felt that he was speaking on behalf of those postmen and postwomen who go out with the mail, heads down in the February darkness and rain, to the backstreets of this land. They will not understand what is going on in this House. However, they have a deep feeling for the Post Office, a feeling that has been developed over five centuries, since the first Master of the King's Mail, Brian Tuke, to the opening in 1635 of a postal service for the likes of us. It is a great and historic institution, a part of the fabric of this realm. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, reminded us of that, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
On behalf of all those people, as well as on behalf of the national interest, I intervened with my amendment to talk about the balance sheet of the new Post Office company. It should be given strength so that it will be able to support those 180,000 Post Office workers and enable them to carry forward the great tradition that they have inherited.
On the last occasion I mentioned my concern that, in negotiating major partnerships in a world in which the big players—the well-heeled, strongly commercial players—are likely to become great postal operators throughout Europe and perhaps the world, the Post Office should have a balance sheet which gives it a basis of strength for such negotiations. I expressed also
1122
my concern that it was important to ensure that the Post Office should be able to demonstrate strong operating results.
The reduction of the monopoly from 350 grammes to 150 grammes—the Post Office has agreed to that and that is the intention of the Government—will take £100 million out of the bottom line. If the commission has its way, the chief executive stated, I believe, the mail's profits will be eliminated. I also mentioned the taking out of past profits in the form of assets, producing £100 million a year. Furthermore, at that point I had not recollected that the Post Office has enjoyed a pensions contributions holiday for the Post Office staff superannuation scheme for very many years. That is worth at least £100 million a year. I am concerned, therefore, that the Minister should be valiant in pursuit of the principle that he announced in response to my amendment; namely, that in thinking of the balance sheet, the Government should be forward-thinking about the purposes that they have in mind and the national interest, and they should enable the Post Office to go forward in strength.
I recognise that this matter is in the hands of those who have much more expert knowledge than I. I have great confidence in them. I thank the Minister and I am sure that he will be valiant in their support.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this subject came up rather belatedly in Committee. It was not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, as he explained, but perhaps the fault of some of the rest of us that his amendment was not reached on that occasion. Since then, we have had the report and financial accounts of the Post Office. On 19th June, it announced a post-tax loss of £264 million for the year 1999–00. It was the first time in 24 years that the corporation had not made a profit. Not surprisingly, the result was heavily influenced by the £571 million write-down of the assets, due to the changes made to the Horizon project to automate the Post Office network.
Although that result was not unexpected (it was planned for) in a real world it would surely affect the balance sheet, would it not? We shall all want to be convinced that the balance sheet will be strong notwithstanding the write-down, which has been necessary through what the Minister could fairly believe were government activities beyond the control of the Post Office.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the losses were due to an accounting write-down. The reason for the write-down had to do with the fact that we had to take action to deal with the misconceived project that had been put in place to automate Post Office Counters. To the extend that accounting entries are ever real, this is a real accounting entry. The money that had been put into the project was effectively of no value going forward to the Post Office. So the situation was corrected in a perfectly correct accounting way. What it does not affect is the underlying ability of the Post Office to create profits in future years.
The thinking behind the amendment is exactly that which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, so well represented. We want to see the Post Office going

1123
forward with a strong balance sheet, and able to develop its business commercially. In the world that we are entering there is no strategy for standing still. The market is opening up, and we want to see the Post Office play a major role. Clearly, in order to do so, it must have the financial resources. That is why we have made arrangements for it to be able to acquire more debt. This amendment will place the Post Office in a strong position as it goes forward.
I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has raised this point. I hope that in responding in this way we can indicate our strong feeling that the Post Office should go forward with a strong balance sheet.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 44, line 43, leave out from ("liabilities") to end of line 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 20A:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause—
OPERATION OF SUB-POST OFFICES AND RURAL POST OFFICES REVIEW ETC

(" .—(1) Within not less than six months and not more than one year of the commencement of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the operation of sub-post offices and rural post offices in the United Kingdom.

(2) The report will, among other issues, cover the following subjects—

(a) the number and location of sub-post offices;

(b) the number of such offices as have closed or been opened in the preceding year, or in the period since the previous report under this section, whichever shall be less;

(c) the numbers employed, or working self-employed in such offices;

(d) an assessment of the reasons for the closure of such offices should they have taken place;

(e) what action the Secretary of State has taken, and proposes to take, to limit such closures;

(f) the effect of government policies, including the means of delivering social security benefits, on sub-post offices in the preceding year.

(3) The report will examine particularly the condition of rural post offices and will cover, among other subjects—

(a) the number and location of rural post offices;

(b) the number of such offices as have closed or been opened in the preceding year, or in the period since the previous report under this section, whichever shall be less;

(c) the numbers employed, or working self-employed in such offices;

(d) the nature of other services provided in rural post offices, including the supply of food and goods;

(e) the number of rural post offices which serve as the only shop or point of sale for food and goods in a village, other than farm shops;

(f) an assessment of the reasons for the closure of such offices should they have taken place;

(g) what action the Secretary of State has taken, and proposes to take, to limit such closures;

1124

(h) the effect of government policies, including the means of delivering social security benefits, on rural post offices in the preceding year.

(4) In compiling the report required by this section the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he shall see fit, including—

(a) the appropriate district and parish councils;

(b) the Women's Institute;

(c) the Council for the Protection of Rural England;

(d) the National Association of Sub Postmasters and Sub Postmistresses

(5) After laying a report before Parliament in pursuance of subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall subsequently lay a report annually before each House of Parliament; and the other provisions of this section apply to a report under this subsection as they apply to a report under subsection (1).

(6) Where a report by the Secretary of State sets out proposals to take any action to limit the closures of sub-post offices and rural post offices no such action may be taken unless each House of Parliament has approved the proposals by resolution.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (3) above "rural" means post offices serving villages or towns outside Greater London or the Metropolitan Counties with a population of no more than 20,000 people.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although in the past few days we have had much greater clarity in regard to the Government's thinking, especially with the Statement yesterday, we were obviously anxious to place on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Post Office should produce a report and that it should be required to state the number and location of sub-post offices.
Some of us are rather mystified as to the Government's perception of what is an acceptable base number of sub-post offices, whether in rural or urban areas. As I said earlier, we found it worrying when, at the Report stage of the social security Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to the United Kingdom having more sub-post offices than other countries; France and Germany were mentioned in particular. The Government have said that they will guarantee the retention of rural sub-post offices, but they have offered no definition of number, where those post offices will be located, or how many people they should serve. The amendment seeks some clarity on those points. I shall reserve my other comments until I speak to a later amendment that I have tabled, which may have a more direct bearing on this matter. Those are the thoughts behind the amendment, to which my noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, have also put their names. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we still have a large number of amendments to consider and I do not want to detain the House any longer. I support everything that my noble friend Lady Byford has just said.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat, because it seems that there is some misunderstanding, that yesterday the Government gave a clear commitment to keep open those post offices that currently exist and which fall within the criteria that we have laid down regarding the size of the population, subject only to the two specific situations

1125
of unavoidable closures. That is an absolutely clear commitment and it answers entirely all the queries raised on this point. So there is a clear commitment, subject to two very small practical points—and I cannot believe that there is disagreement about them because they are clearly specified.
I find it difficult to disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, I do have difficulty with the level of prescription suggested by the noble Baroness. The Bill, as I have said many times, is intended to last for a generation, and the reporting requirements that might be needed in the immediate future might be quite different some years hence.
We gave a commitment yesterday with the publication of the PIU report that we accept its recommendation that the commission should publish an annual report on the network. That report would, of course, be available to Parliament. However, it is much better to leave the exact substance of the report to the discretion of the independent regulator, who is in a better position to judge what the report should contain.
As the PIU report has shown, we have consulted with a wide number of people in all kinds of organisations.
The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to seek the approval of Parliament before taking action that might limit the closures of sub-post offices. While I believe in proper oversight, it is possible that this could actually in some cases delay action that might benefit local post offices, as one would have to wait for the approval of Parliament before any action could be taken to limit closures. Finally, we have made it clear in the context of the PIU report that we are adopting the Countryside Agency's definitions in terms of the rural network, and therefore for a post to qualify as "rural" the number of people it would have to serve would be 10,000 rather than 20,000.
I hope that with the assurance that there will be reports the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. He did indeed speak earlier—and I accept his confirmation—about the two specific categories that the Government obviously cannot guarantee.
However, one thing is still missing, and I shall refer to it in a later amendment. Yesterday's Statement included the following passage:
"This Government are committed to ensuring that the rural post office network is maintained".—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; col. 915.]
That requires money. The PIU report talks of money, but gives no idea of what money. We are told that we have to wait for the spending round. Here I am sure that the noble Lord will respond again. One of our concerns is that it is all very well—it seems to be on the horizon—but we have no indication whether it will be the responsibility of the Post Office to provide that money or whether the Government will give the Post Office the money to provide and how it will kick in.
1126
Everybody will be delighted if the money allocated in the spending review is sufficient, but some of us feel, although we may well be proved wrong, that it might be a one-off, pump-priming. The noble Lord and I agree that we are looking to the longer term. How does he envisage matters in that longer term? On the finance side we are receiving no answers.
I apologise to the noble Lord; I feel like someone trying to extract a tooth that does not wish to come out. I understand the constraints on him, but he will appreciate that those of us on the Opposition Benches are having a very difficult time and are only sorry that the PIU report came out so late, as recently as yesterday. We could have saved ourselves hours, not only in this debate, but in the debates on the social security Bill. If the noble Lord cannot give us guidance today, perhaps he can give some indication that he can be more constructive—within his brief; I appreciate the difficulty he finds himself in—before Third Reading. It would be greatly appreciated. I hope that he will be able to come back to me.
With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Transfer to the Post Office company: tax]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 86, line 24, at end insert—
("Debt
. Any debt assumed by the Post Office company under section 74(1) shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been assumed wholly in consideration of a loan made to the company of an amount equal to the principal sum payable under the debt.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Prohibition on affixing advertisements on certain letter boxes etc.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 51, line 39, leave out (", receptacle or other facility") and insert ("or receptacle").
Page 51, line 45, leave out ("purposes of a universal service provider") and insert ("provision of any postal services in connection with the provision of a universal postal service or a part of such a service").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 87 [Prohibition on misleading descriptions]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26:
Page 52, line 9, after ("house") insert (", building, room, vehicle").
Page 52, line 22, after ("collect") insert (", receive, sort, deliver").
Page 52, line 25, after ("collecting") insert (", receiving, sorting, delivering").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Acquisition of land]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 87, line 16, at end insert ("as a universal service provider").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the group of minor drafting amendments of which this amendment is a part relates to the compulsory acquisition provisions in the schedule and other land issues in Schedule 6.
Amendments No. 27, 28, 29 and 37 clarify that a universal service provider's undertaking is limited to its undertaking as a universal service provider. The effect of the amendments is to ensure that references to a statutory undertaking or undertaker in other parts of the Bill, and in other relevant legislation, are construed correctly.
Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35 are intended to clarify the meaning of "statutory undertakers" in paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 6 by expanding the references to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Amendment No. 31 is intended to ensure that "appropriate Minister" in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 reflects the transfer of responsibility to the National Assembly of Wales of water and sewerage undertakers. It is not correct to refer only to "Minister" in that subparagraph.
I wish to notify the House that the Government are considering tabling further amendments relating to land on Third Reading. They would cover two areas. The first relates to the status of land already owned by universal service providers in connection with the provision of the universal service. The second relates to a request from the Northern Ireland Assembly about the procedures to be followed when universal service providers wish to compulsorily purchase land in Northern Ireland. If the Government table such amendments I shall write to the Opposition Front Benches before Third Reading explaining their details. I shall also place a copy of my letter in the House Library. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it seems to be a feature of this Government that legislation is put before us ill prepared, and that over the course of its passage through both Houses more and more and more Government amendments are made. That is not a satisfactory way of legislating. If amendments on whatever subject—in this case land—have to be made late, Parliament as a whole is given an impossible task in carrying out its role of supervising the legislation.
If the noble Lord is to put down the amendments, I hope he will see to it that at least we have two days to see them in the flesh and consider them, because on Third Reading we are not allowed manuscript amendments, nor are we allowed the sort of situation, which I was surprised we were allowed this afternoon, that we had on Amendment No. 4A. That would be quite improper. If there were a mistake in any of those amendments, the Opposition would not be able to point it out to the Government. That would be absolutely wrong.
I hope that on this occasion at least, when we are dealing with a very small Bill, and not a particularly technical one although a certain amount of interest has naturally been shown in it during our debates, we shall have time to consider the amendments adequately.
1128
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 87, line 25, at end insert ("as a universal service provider").
Page 87, line 39, at end insert ("as a universal service provider").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Further provisions relating to land]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 93, line 28, at end insert—
("Power to place post-boxes etc in streets

.—(1) A universal service provider may, for any purpose in connection with the provision of a universal postal service, execute in a street works of any of the kinds mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).

(2) The kinds of works are—

(a) placing a universal postal service letter box or a universal postal service pouch-box in a street,

(b) inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing, altering or renewing such apparatus which has been so placed, changing its position or removing it,

(c) works needed for, or incidental to, the purposes of any works falling within paragraph (a) or (b) (including, in particular, breaking up or opening a street).

(3) Accordingly, Part III of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (street works in England and Wales), and the Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, apply in relation to undertakers' works in exercise of a power conferred by this paragraph.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, references in Part III of the Act of 1991 or the Order of 1995 to apparatus shall he construed as including universal postal service letter boxes and universal postal service pouch-boxes.

(5) Subject to sub-paragraphs (6) and (7), sub-paragraph (1) authorises the universal service provider concerned to execute works of any of the kinds mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) without obtaining any consent which would otherwise be required to be given by the street authority in its capacity as such and, in the case of a maintainable highway, in its capacity as owner.

(6) Sub-paragraph (5) is without prejudice to—

(a) the provisions of Part III of the Act of 1991, or the provisions of the Order of 1995, as to the making of requirements by the street authority or as to the settlement of a plan and section and the execution of the works in accordance with them,

(b) section 61 of the Act of 1991 or Article 21 of the Order of 1995 (consent required for protected streets).

(7) Sub-paragraph (1) does not free the universal service provider concerned from obtaining any other consent, licence or permission which may be required.

(8) This paragraph binds the Crown.

(9) In this paragraph references to doing anything in a street shall be construed as including references to doing anything under, over, across, along or upon the street.

(10) In this paragraph—

"maintainable highway"—

(a) in England and Wales, has the same meaning as in Part III of the Act of 1991 and includes a street in respect of which a declaration has been made under section 87 of that Act (prospectively maintainable highways), and

1129

(b) in Northern Ireland, means a road (within the meaning of the Order of 1995) and includes a street in respect of which a declaration has been made under Article 46 of that Order (prospective roads),

"street" and "street authority"—

(a) in England and Wales, have the same meaning as in Part III of the Act of 1991, and

(b) in Northern Ireland, have the same meaning as in the Order of 1995, and

"universal postal service pouch-box" means any box or receptacle provided by a universal service provider for the temporary storage of postal packets in the course of transmission by post pending their collection for immediate delivery by a person who is in the course of delivering postal packets in connection with the provision of a universal postal service.

(11) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland—

(a) references to streets shall be construed as references to roads and references to street authority shall be construed as references to road works authority,

(b) "maintainable highway" means a public road within the meaning of Part IV of the Act of 1991 and includes a road in respect of which a declaration has been made under section 146 of that Act (prospective public roads),

(c) "road" and "road works authority" have the same meaning as in Part IV of the Act of 1991,

(d) in sub-paragraph (3) for the words from "Part III" to "apply" there shall be substituted "Part IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (road works in Scotland) applies",

(e) in sub-paragraph (4) for the words from "Part III" to "1995" there shall be substituted "Part IV of the Act of 1991",

(f) in sub-paragraph (6)(a) for the words from "Part III" to "1995," there shall be substituted "Part IV of the Act of 1991", and

(g) in sub-paragraph (6)(b) for the words from "61" to "of 1995" there shall be substituted "120 of the Act of 1991".").

The noble Lord said: The legal authority for the installation of post boxes and postal-pouch boxes in the street is unclear in current legislation. The purpose of this technical amendment is to put universal service providers on the same basis as other statutory undertakers in relation to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and to reduce the unnecessary administrative burden in installing postal apparatus. This is causing delays to the installation of postal pouch-boxes, which are important to ensure that letters are delivered on time. Pouch-boxes are secure receptacles from which post men and women collect additional mail sacks without returning to the delivery office, thereby enabling health and safety legislation to be observed while responding to increasing volumes of mail. The alternative would be to deliver sacks to post men and women by van, which would be environmentally undesirable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 37:
Page 94, line 7, leave out second ("Minister") and insert ("person").
Page 94, line 9, leave out ("has the same meaning as in") and insert ("means any persons who, by virtue of").
1130
Page 94, line 10, at end insert ("are or are treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of that Act or any provision of that Act.").
Page 94, line 18, leave out ("has the same meaning as in") and insert ("means any persons who, by virtue of").
Page 94, line 19, at end insert ("are or are treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of that Act or any provision of that Act.").
Page 94, line 33, leave out from ("in") to ("the") and insert ("any other case").
Page 95, line 38, at end insert ("as a universal service provider").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 103 [Subsidy for public post offices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 61, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) Payments under a scheme under this section shall be made only following an independent assessment of whether such payments would create a competitive disadvantage between public post offices.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to probe government thinking on the subsidy clause. As it stands, the provision is extremely vague and short on detail. The amendment would ensure that before any subsidy was paid an independent assessment was made of the effect of the subsidy on competition between different sub-post offices, which we believe would be valuable. Obviously, there is a danger that subsidies will create a distortion in the market. For example, if the subsidy is paid to one sub-post office, what will be the effect on the next nearest sub-post office or village shop, which might not be a sub-post office but might sell products in competition with it?
Obviously, there is a real risk of creating artificial competitive distortions in the market. We were not particularly keen on subsidies and wanted more business. However, if there are to be subsidies we must ensure that they do not distort the market, which is the purpose of this simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this amendment has the effect of delaying payments under a scheme while an additional and unnecessary assessment is made of the effects of the payment on competition between postal operators. As with any government subsidy, competition and state aid rules would apply to the provision of any assistance through a scheme made under this clause. Any such scheme would, therefore, be subject to oversight by the relevant competition authorities in the UK and the European Commission.
The proposed amendment does not specify who might carry out an independent assessment of whether payments under a scheme would create a competitive disadvantage between public post offices; nor, for that matter, does it say from whom it should be independent. I find it difficult to envisage any persons or bodies more independent and well fitted to carry out

1131
such an assessment than the competition authorities. As I have said, it is implicit that any scheme is subject to competition and state aid rules.
The amendment is also technically deficient. First, it is concerned only with the assessment of the effect of payments on competition between public post offices. That would he a very narrow consideration—too narrow in our view. If a scheme is judged to be compliant with competition and state aid rules we expect it to be so in relation to all relevant markets, not simply for the purposes of competition between public post offices. The amendment is also deficient because, while it requires an independent assessment before payments can be made, it does not provide that payment cannot be made if the assessment is such that payments will create a competitive disadvantage between public post offices.
The Government are committed to fair and open markets and want to encourage competition. That is something on which I hope we can agree. We are also aware of the need to make provision to allow for the possibility of a scheme to support post offices, particularly those in rural and deprived urban areas. When we consider a scheme under these provisions we shall ensure that it complies with competition and state aid rules. Any scheme will also have to come before Parliament, itself an independent body, for approval by affirmative resolution. Therefore, there will be plenty of opportunity to comment on the merits or demerits of a specific scheme, including its effect on competition. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am amazed that I have moved so many deficient amendments in one afternoon and evening. I surprise myself. I believe that the noble Lord gave an undertaking—I shall read his response with care—that any subsidy would be subject to a test as to whether or not it hindered competition. If, having read the Minister's response carefully, I am not satisfied and must return to this matter I shall ensure that any amendment is not defective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 61, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) A scheme under this section must provide for payments under the scheme to be made subject to conditions specified in or determined under the scheme enabling payments of any benefits to which section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 applies to be made at a public post office to which the scheme applies—

(a) in cash;

(b) in a manner which ensures the identification of the recipient; and

(c) to a designated proxy of the recipient.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, used the expression "he who waits". I wonder whether this is my opportunity and that "she who waits" is appropriate. I fear not.
I return to subsidies for sub-post offices, the challenges that they face in the move to ACT and the pressure placed on sub-post offices to remain viable in future. I totally accept the confirmation by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and other Ministers that welfare benefit payments will be available in cash. However, what is not clear is who is to bear the cost of these transactions. We have been through the arguments already and I do not anticipate going through each of them again, which I am sure is a great relief to the Minister.
The noble Lord accepts that when books and giros disappear and are replaced by cards, or whatever it be, there will be a cost. When another place debated the Statement on the Post Office network the Secretary of State said that transaction costs were likely to be negotiated. For example, I understand that at the moment the cost of a pension transaction is 13p. We do not know what the cost or saving will be when the new system kicks in. If there is a saving who will get it, and how will it be paid? I hope that in tabling this amendment again I shall receive answers to some of those questions. In the same debate my right honourable friend Peter Lilley pressed the Minister to say,
"whether sub-post offices will receive the same amount or less per transaction than they currently receive from the Post Office? Will the same number of transactions or fewer transactions be made? If sub-post offices receive the same revenues, from where will the savings come that the Secretary of State anticipates? If they receive less revenue, will not post office closures accelerate in future?".—[Official Report. Commons, 28/6/00; col. 914.]
The response of the Minister in another place still leaves big question marks. I hope that this afternoon these questions can be answered.
In an earlier debate the Minister responded to a question from me about universal service provision. I forget the exact phraseology that I used. The Minister said that universal service provision did not cover welfare benefit payments. That sent shivers down my spine and caused me extreme worry. I hope that I have given a lifeline to the Minister to enable him to think about his earlier response. The noble Lord said that universal service provision concerned letters and had nothing to do with welfare benefit payments. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that in future the Post Office remains viable and can do the kinds of things that we wish it to do. Until now one of its activities has been the payment of welfare benefits. At Committee stage I was also disturbed to hear the Minister suggest that perhaps other organisations might look at the question of payments. These two negatives give me great concern about the future of welfare benefit payments, and for that reason I have tabled these amendments again. The House would be greatly helped if the Minister could clarify the position.
At Committee stage the Minister gave the following response:
"There are two issues involved. One is the subsidy issue. I hope I have made clear that, if we have a subsidy scheme, it has not been decided who it would be. Therefore, there have been no discussions with various bodies. As there are alternative bodies, it might not be sensible at this point to say that it would be done through the commission".—[Official Report, 15/6/00, col. 1816.]
I became even more confused. In my innocence, I had assumed throughout the debates at both stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill and this Bill that it was the Government's intention that welfare benefits would continue to be paid through the post office. However, one receives misleading messages. For that reason, I have tabled this amendment again to try to clarify the intentions of the Government, particularly as to the future but also in relation to the cost implications. As I said earlier, I have not received answers to the questions that I put. I hope that my argument may tease from the Minister a more fulfilling response. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the universal service provision is, and has been for generations, about the delivery of letters. It has nothing to do with the payment of welfare benefits through sub-post offices. That is not to say that we do not think the payment of welfare benefits through sub-post offices is extremely important. That is the way we see the process going. That is what the Statement yesterday was about. It is simply a matter of fact that the universal service provision is, and always has been, a requirement about the delivery of letters. We envisage welfare benefits continuing to be paid through sub-post offices. That is a quite separate matter. We think that right and we hope that it will continue in future.
The amount is 70p for a banking transaction from Post Office Counters Limited, and 13p for a benefit book transaction. The exact sums which sub-post offices will receive will be subject, as in the past, to negotiations between Post Office Counters Limited and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. We can give no guarantee as to the number of those transactions. That will depend, as always, on the number of users and customers who go to the post offices to receive those benefits. People may choose to go elsewhere. We cannot guarantee the number of those payments.
I would hope that Amendment No. 39, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be withdrawn. The amendment is not appropriate in the light of the Government's announcement yesterday of the results of the PIU study. We have given clear undertakings that there will be financial assistance for post offices; and that benefits will be paid in cash at post offices now and in the future if benefit recipients choose that method.
I assure the noble Baroness, as I did the Committee, that designated proxies will still be recognised under any new arrangements introduced in future.
The amendment is based on the supposition that there will be a single scheme for the provision of financial assistance for public post offices. There may be more than one. This is over a long period. For example, we might want a separate scheme for the provision of IT facilities at post offices. I do not see why access to the Internet should become embroiled in the issue of benefit payments. We want the post office
1134
to be a point not only at which benefits can be collected, important as that is, but also a point of access for a range of government and other services.
I remind the House that the Bill is intended to last for a generation. Over that period of time there may be a number of schemes targeting different types of post offices or certain services which do not have any direct bearing on the question of benefits. This scheme would fetter unnecessarily this discretion within the Bill. Any scheme will have to come before Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution. There will be plenty of opportunity, therefore, to comment on the merits or demerits of a specific scheme.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am somewhat disappointed that he is unable to give fuller details on the financial implications as regards welfare benefits. I thank the noble Lord for his clarification of the 70p for a banking transaction and of the 13p to which I referred. The subject is of great concern to many people who receive benefits and to the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses whose livelihoods depend on such payments. As the noble Lord knows well, some 40 per cent of their income comes from those payments.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell—he is no longer in his place—pointed out that instead of saying, "You can have payment at the post office but you can choose another way", by informing people about the welfare benefit payments the Government tend to promote the fact that individuals can have ACT. We would prefer automatic payment through the post office with the ability to opt out if individuals wish to have ACT. That is where the Government take a different line from us.
At the end of the day, the issue involves individual choice. I am grateful for the Minister's comments about cash payments. I shall read Hansard carefully. I thank the noble Lord for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 [Application of customs and excise enactments to certain postal packets]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 63, line 43, at end insert—
("(6) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(7) No regulations shall be made under this section unless—

(a) a draft of the regulations has been laid before the House of Commons together with a reasoned statement from the Treasury confirming that, in its opinion, the regulations, if made, would not distort competition in the provision of postal services; and

(b) the draft regulations are approved by resolution of that House.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 51 which is consequential.
When we last debated this clause in great detail I indicated to the Minister that I would return to the issue. Those who briefed me did not agree with the

1135
answer. I now put forward a further probing amendment which requires regulations under Clause 105 to be approved by the House of Commons, as they are a fiscal measure, before coming into effect and would require the Treasury in seeking that approval to confirm that the regulations would not distort competition in postal services.
I could speak again at length on the amendment but I think that it would be unwise. I know that the Minister is well aware of the concerns. We have been in correspondence. In its simplest form the amendment seeks to ensure that there is no undue advantage between Parcelforce and express couriers in their dealings with Customs and Excise when sending parcels abroad. The Minister has replied in a detailed letter addressing some of the questions I posed in Committee. His answer was faxed to my house and as I did not return home until 10.30 p.m. I did not have the opportunity to give the response the attention it undoubtedly deserves.
His argument centres around the fact that there are two totally different types of traffic: one by Parcelforce, and another by express couriers where time is the critical issue. On 16th June in a Question for Written Answer I asked the Minister to identify Parcelforce's traffic so that we can see how much it differs from those of the express couriers. I maintain that the two types of traffic are identical and, therefore, that all operations exporting parcels abroad should be treated in the same way by Customs and Excise. I have received an advertisement from Parcelforce which reinforces my view that it is the same kind of traffic. Tomorrow I shall post it to the Minister. I do not think that there is a distinction.
What has the Minister to say on that and other issues raised? I beg to move.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I speak as the Honorary President of the British International Freight Association whose attention has been drawn to the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. I associate myself with her remarks which were of a probing nature. The issues are whether there is actually, and whether there is perceived to be, a distortion in competition. They can be resolved simply because if there is no distortion in competition, as the Government have argued, there can be no problems in ensuring that Parcelforce and the public sector abide by and are governed by exactly the same Customs and Excise regulations and new procedures as is the private sector.
One understands the reasons for the actions of Customs and Excise in introducing new electronic systems governing the import and export of express parcels of certain categories of freight. It saves staff needs and one does not necessarily argue with that. My argument and that of the association of which I am president—many of the companies in the association are small by comparison with the large international couriers—is that in this tough world the Post Office and Parcelforce are intent on entering, in the sense of developing greater commercial freedom and behaving
1136
like the private sector, they should be governed by exactly the same pressures and rules which apply to the private sector.
I have not had the opportunity of benefiting from the late-night fax which my noble friend Lady Miller received last night; nor have I had an opportunity to understand the Government's arguments or to discuss the matter with my noble friend. However, I look forward to the Minister's response in trying to allay the fears of members of my association.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Clause 105 applies Customs legislation to postal packets. It re-enacts and updates the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Post Office Act 1953. It gives the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and the commissioners of Customs and Excise, the power to make regulations specifying how the legislation should apply. This power has been amended only in so far as it is necessary to reflect the changing market conditions by changing references to the Post Office to postal operator. It is intended only to maintain the powers that Customs and Excise currently enjoy and operate.
Two issues arise from the way in which the system is operated. The first is the requirement of further information. Customs are clear that the information called for will in no way exceed that provided at present and is the minimum required under EC agreements.
The provision prior to export of an eight-digit tariff code for consignments valued at more than £600 was a bone of contention, but it has now been agreed that a good plain language description of the goods will also be acceptable. Exports declared using the plain language description will not be disadvantaged.
The second issue relates to the question of whether there is unfair treatment. I do not believe that there is. Customs' treatment of the two types of traffic must be viewed in the round. For imports, the express carriers have been approved to use simplified procedures which allow them to clear their goods within one hour of arrival. Postal packages chargeable with duty would normally have to wait several hours to be cleared and at times as much as two or three days. Express carriers offer a time critical service at premium rates, whereas postal rates are lower and time of delivery less certain. Customs' treatment of these two types of traffic in part reflects the needs of the trade. Express carriers should appreciate that point.
I have examined the issue and believe that it is fair in the circumstances. However, I shall of course look at any material which the noble Baroness provides. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister deserves a better answer than the one I was able to give to his reply to my letter. I shall not pursue the matter now because I need to go back to those who brief me. They were clearly unhappy and, from a cursory glance, I do not believe that they will agree with the point the Minister made in his letter that competition between all is fair as regards Customs and Excise.

1137
I shall not waste any more of your Lordships' time on the amendment. I shall write to the Minister and send him the mailshot from the Post Office which indicates that it has a speedy service. I do not believe that it is a two-track service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Conditions of transit of postal packets]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 64, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) The detention or disposal by a postal operator of any postal packet on the grounds of a contravention of section 85 or of any terms and conditions applicable to its transmission by post shall not exempt the sender from any proceedings which might have been taken if the packet had been delivered in due course of post.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 brings forward into the Bill a provision similar to that which currently exists in Section 11(4) of the Post Office Act 1953. It is intended to ensure that the detention or disposal of a postal packet, on the grounds of a contravention of Clause 85 of the Bill (which prohibits the sending of certain articles by post) or of any of the terms and conditions applicable to its transmission by post, does not exempt the sender from any proceedings which might have been taken if the postal packet had been delivered in the due course of post.
The amendment makes it clear that the fact that the postal packet does not reach its destination because it is detained or destroyed by a postal operator, as is permitted by Clause 107 where the postal operator knows or reasonably suspects the packet is being sent by post in contravention of Clause 85, should not prevent proceedings being brought. This applies to proceedings under this or other legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 111 [Exclusion of liability in relation to postal and money orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 65, line 44, after first ("a") insert ("reasonable").
Page 66, line 1, after ("a") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 relate to the provisions in Clause 111, which covers postal and money orders.
Subsection (1) of the clause exempts the Post Office company from any proceedings if it refuses to pay or delays payment of a postal or money order. Following further consideration of this exemption, the Government have concluded that as currently drafted the exemption is too wide. We consider that it should apply only where the Post Office company has a reasonable excuse for refusing to pay or delaying the payment of a postal or money order. Such an excuse would be where there was a suspicion that the postal or money order was stolen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 115 [Extension of existing powers relating to the Post Office]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 69, line 2, at end insert—
("(7) After section 74(4) of that Act there shall be inserted—
"(4A) For the purposes of this section equivalents in sterling shall be calculated as the Secretary of State considers appropriate." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause—
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE COUNCIL

(" .—(1) On such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint ("the relevant day"), all the property, rights and liabilities to which the Post Office Users' National Council was entitled or subject immediately before that day shall become by virtue of this section property, rights and liabilities of the Council.

(2) An order made under subsection (1) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order at any time before any property, rights or liabilities of the Post Office Users' National Council vest in the Council by virtue of this section.

(3) Paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 3 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of section 62 with such modifications as are necessary (including the substitution for references to the Post Office and the Post Office company of references to the Post Office Users' National Council and the Council respectively).

(4) Where a person employed in the civil service of the state and seconded to the Post Office Users' National Council or a Country Council immediately before the relevant day becomes an employee of the Council on that day, his period of employment in the civil service of the state (including any part of that period spent otherwise than on secondment) counts as a period of employment with the Council for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (and the change of employer does not affect the continuity of the period of employment for those purposes).

(5) Where a person who—

(a) is employed in the civil service of the state and is seconded to the Council, and

(b) immediately before his secondment to the Council was seconded to the Post Office Users' National Council or a Country Council,

becomes an employee of the Council, his period of employment in the civil service of the state (including any part of that period spent otherwise than on secondment) counts as a period of employment with the Council for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (and the change of employer does not affect the continuity of the period of employment for those purposes).

(6) In this section "Country Council" means the Post Office Users' Council for Scotland, the Post Office Users' Council for Wales or the Post Office Users' Council for Northern Ireland.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Disclosure of information]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 95, line 43, after ("Act") insert ("(other than section 62 or (Supplementary provisions relating to the Council))").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 71, line 6, after ("for") insert ("different cases or descriptions of case or for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in the group modify some of the provisions under which the Secretary of State may make orders in accordance with the Bill. The amendments are mainly technical adjustments to ensure that the powers can be exercised to best effect. In particular, many of the amendments in the group are aimed at ensuring that the use of the powers to make consequential amendments of existing legislation and to make arrangements for the commencement of the Bill can be effectively exercised. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this group of amendments comes almost at the end of the Marshalled List. I am concerned about Amendment No. 64 to Clause 126. It turns into a negative procedure order any positive amendment procedure order. There are other similar amendments. Orders under this Bill are almost entirely negative procedures and under other earlier Acts they are affirmative procedures. As I understand it, some of the amendments turn them to negative procedures.
I have not had time to study the matter in great detail. Therefore, I am a little unclear as to whether that is the effect of the amendments. If it is, I give notice that I shall return to the subject at Third Reading.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the point which the noble Lord raises is that it is possible to put together negative and affirmative resolutions and take them together for convenience. If that is done, the specific and rather technical point is that it does not prejudice the ability to use the negative order in the future. I believe that that is the specific point to which the noble Lord refers. However, if I may take the matter away and consider it in detail, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I was admittedly unclear on the matter, I believe that we had both better look at Hansard in the morning to decide what each of us said and whether we said the right thing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 50:
Page 71, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The power of the Secretary of State under paragraph A6(1) of Schedule 8 (including that power as extended by this section) may be exercised by modifying any enactment.").
Page 71, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The power of the Secretary of State under section 102, 103, 126(1) or 127 (including that power as extended by this section) may be exercised so as to make provision for the delegation of functions.").
1140
Page 71, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The fact that a power is conferred by this Act does not prejudice the extent of any other power so conferred.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 56:
Page 71, line 23, after ("shall") insert (", if made without a draft of it having been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,").
Page 71, line 25, after second ("and") insert ("paragraph 1 (4A) of Schedule 3 (including that paragraph as applied by section (Supplementary provisions relating to the Council)(3)),").
Page 71, line 26, at end insert ("and paragraph A6(1) of Schedule 8").
Page 71, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) An instrument containing an order under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (7) which revokes, amends or re-enacts an order under any of the provisions mentioned in that subsection may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be subject to a different procedure under that subsection from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original order was subject.").
Page 71, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In this section references to enactment include references to any instrument or other document.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 124 [Interpretation]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 63:
Page 72, line 19, leave out from ("enactment") to ("whenever") in line 20.
Page 72, line 42, leave out ("purposes of a postal operator") and insert ("provision of any postal services").
Page 72, line 47, leave out ("postal services") and insert ("the service of conveying postal packets from one place to another by post or any of the incidental services of receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering such packets").
Page 73, line 6, leave out ("such services") and insert ("any of those services and is provided in conjunction with any of them").
Page 73, line 8, leave out ("Communities") and insert ("Union").
Page 73, line 15, after ("a") insert ("postal").
Page 73, line 16, after ("packets") insert ("in connection with their transmission by post").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [General amendments and repeals]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 75, line 11, leave out from ("such") to end of line 13 and insert ("supplementary, incidental or consequential provision he considers necessary or expedient for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act or for giving full effect to this Act or any such provision.
(1A) The power conferred by subsection (1) (including that power as extended by section 121) may, in particular, be exercised by modifying any enactment, instrument or other document.
(1B) No other provision of this Act restricts the power conferred by subsection (1).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of enactments]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 98, line 25, at end insert—
("PART I
GENERAL AMENDMENTS
A1.—(1) Any enactment which requires or authorises a document or other thing to be sent by post (whether or not it makes any other provision in that respect) shall not be construed as limited to requiring or (as the case may be) authorising that thing to be sent by the postal system of the Post Office company.
(2) Any enactment which makes any other provision in relation to the sending of a document or other thing by post or to a thing so sent shall not be construed as limited to the sending of that thing by the postal system of the Post Office company or (as the case may be) to a thing sent by that system.
A2.—(l) Any enactment which requires or authorises a document or other thing to be sent by registered post (whether or not it makes any other provision in that respect) shall be construed as if it required or (as the case may be) authorised that thing to be sent by a registered post service.
(2) Any enactment which makes any other provision in relation to the sending of a document or other thing by registered post or to a thing so sent shall be construed as if it made corresponding provision in relation to the sending of that thing by a registered post service or (as the case may be) to a thing sent by such a service.
A3.—(1) Any enactment which requires or authorises a document or other thing to be sent by recorded delivery (whether or not it makes any other provision in that respect) shall be construed as if it required or (as the case may be) authorised that thing to be sent by a postal service which provides for the delivery of the document or other thing by post to he recorded.
(2) Any enactment which makes any other provision in relation to the sending of a document or other thing by recorded delivery or to a thing so sent shall be construed as if it made corresponding provision in relation to the sending of that thing by a postal service which provides for the delivery of the document or other thing by post to be recorded or (as the case may be) to a thing sent by such a service.
A4.—(1) Any enactment which requires or authorises a document or other thing to be sent by first class post (whether or not it makes any other provision in that respect) shall be construed as if it required or (as the case may be) authorised that thing to be sent by a postal service which seeks to deliver such documents or other things by post no later than the next working day in all or the majority of cases.
(2) Any enactment which makes any other provision in relation to the sending of a document or other thing by first class post or to a thing so sent shall be construed as if it made corresponding provision in relation to the sending of that thing by a postal service which seeks to deliver such documents or other things by post no later than the next working day in all or the majority of cases or (as the case may be) to a thing sent by such a service.
A5.—(1) Any reference (however worded and including references which are to be construed as such references) in a related enactment to the post or to a thing sent by post shall not be construed as limited to the postal system of the Post Office company or (as the case may be) to a thing sent by that system.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "related enactment" means—

(a) any enactment the provisions of which apply to, or operate in consequence of the operation of, any enactment to which paragraph Al applies, or

(b) any enactment relating to the sending of documents or other things otherwise than by post or to documents or other things so sent.

(3) Any reference (however worded and including references which are to be construed as such references) in a related enactment to the registered post, the recorded delivery service or the first class post, or to a letter or other postal packet sent by that service or post, shall be construed as references (as the case may be) to a registered post service, a postal service which provides for the delivery of the document or other thing by post to be recorded or a postal service which seeks to deliver such documents or other things by post no later than the next working day in all or the majority of cases, or to a letter or other postal packet sent by such a service or post.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) "related enactment" means—

(a) any enactment the provisions of which apply to, or operate in consequence of the operation of, any enactment to which paragraph A2, A3 or (as the case may be) A4 applies,

(b) any enactment relating to the sending of documents or other things otherwise than by registered post, recorded delivery or (as the case may be) first class post or to documents or other things so sent.

(5) Any reference (however worded and including references which are to be construed as such references) in a related enactment to—

(a) a Post Office receipt for a registered or recorded letter or other postal packet.

(b) an acknowledgement by the Post Office of delivery of such a letter or packet, or a certificate by the Post Office of such delivery,

shall be construed as a reference to a receipt of, or an acknowledgement or certificate by, the postal operator concerned.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) "related enactment" means—

(a) any enactment (other than a future enactment) the provisions of which apply to, or operate in consequence of the operation of, any enactment to which paragraph A2 or (as the case may be) A3 applies,

(b) any enactment (other than a future enactment) relating to the sending of documents or other things otherwise than by registered post or recorded delivery or to documents or other things so sent.

(7) This paragraph is without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs A1 to A4.
A6.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for any provision of paragraphs A1 to AS not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in such cases or descriptions of case as he considers appropriate.
(2) Paragraphs A1 to A5 do not apply in relation to future enactments if the context otherwise requires.
(3) Paragraphs A1 to A5 are subject to any provision made by or under this Act.
A7.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule, "future enactment" means any enactment passed or made after the passing of this Act other than—

(a) any enactment made before the commencement of this sub-paragraph and comprised in subordinate legislation made under an enactment passed or made before the passing of this Act, and

(b) any Act passed in the same session as this Act or any enactment comprised in subordinate legislation made under such an Act before the commencement of this sub-paragraph.

(2) In this Part of this Schedule—

(a) references to sending a document or other thing include references to serving, executing, giving or delivering it or doing any similar thing,

(b) references to sending any thing by registered post include references to sending it by or in a registered letter or other postal packet (whether the references are expressed in those terms or terms having a similar effect and whether there is any mention of the post or prepayment),

1143

(c) references to sending any thing by recorded delivery include references to sending it by or in a recorded letter or other postal packet (whether the references are expressed in those terms or terms having a similar effect and whether there is any mention of the post or prepayment),

(d) references to any thing sent by registered post or the recorded delivery service shall be construed accordingly.

PART II OTHER AMENDMENTS").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66, 68 to 72, 74 and 75. This group of amendments relates to modifications and repeals of existing enactments.
The effect of Amendment No. 65 is to gloss the interpretation of standard postal terms contained in legislation. The amendment deals specifically with the considerable number of references in legislation to the expressions "by post", "registered post", "recorded delivery" and "first-class post". The Bill creates a new postal regime and the meaning of those terms will be superseded. For example, as the provisions of the Bill will allow for there to be more than one provider of a universal postal service, it is not appropriate for "by post" to be limited to requiring or authorising a document to be sent by the Post Office postal system. Therefore, by virtue of the amendment, such references are not to be construed as being so limited.
In addition, the Bill contains a new definition of "registered postal service"; "recorded delivery" is no longer the name of the Post Office signature service; and, in future, universal service providers may not provide a service called "first class". The general glosses in this amendment are meant to deal with those generic terms and provide standard definitions.
I apologise for inserting such a substantial amendment into the Bill on Report. I do not believe that it is controversial and its insertion will significantly reduce the number of consequential amendments that will need to be made under the power in Clause 126.
Amendments Nos. 66, 68 and 69 make modifications to the Post Office Act 1969, the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Insolvency Act 1986, again to reflect the new postal regime established by the Bill.
Amendment No. 70 is a technical consequential amendment to bring the term of reservation for "post" in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 up to date with the provisions in the Bill. The terms of reservation in Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act define the areas in which the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot legislate without express permission from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. A term of reservation for postal matters already exists, but it will not make sense in the post-Bill world as it refers expressly to "the Post Office". Therefore, we have amended it.
The amended term of reservation is aimed primarily at capturing the regulation of postal services, the transformation of the Post Office, the activities of the commission and the council, and the activities of
1144
postal operators that come within the scope of the Bill. It is not designed to encompass all the activities of postal operators, nor all the activities of the Post Office company. The exception ensures that the devolved administration can legislate to provide financial assistance for the provision of services through public post offices other than postal services or postal or money orders.
Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 74 and 75 repeal provisions in the existing Post Office legislation and the Mental Health Act 1983 that are either spent or superseded by the provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly, as the Bill introduces competition into postal services, it is absolutely right to ensure that any competitor is covered. However, I rise to make the point that, when I spoke to the previous group of amendments, I referred to Amendment No. 64 but I was actually talking about Amendment No. 55. Therefore, when the noble Lord looks at Hansard, as shall I, perhaps he can translate "64" into "55" and make life very much easier for both of us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 70:
Page 98, line 39, at end insert—
("Post Office Act 1969 (c.48)
In section 135(1) of the Post Office Act 1969 (remuneration of Post Office for issuing game licences in England and Wales) for "the Post Office", where it appears for the first, second and third time, there shall be substituted "the Post Office company".").
Page 99, line 8, at end insert—
("Superannuation Act 1972 (c.11)
. In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972 (kinds of employment in relation to which pension schemes may be made), in the list of "Other Bodies", there shall he inserted at the appropriate place—
The Consumer Council for Postal Services." ").
Page 100, line 17, at end insert—
("Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
.—(1) Section 134 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (correspondence of patients) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for "the Post Office" there shall be substituted "the postal operator concerned".
(3) In subsection (9)—

(a) after "this Act" there shall be inserted "and "postal operator" and",

(b) for "has", where it appears for the second time, there shall be substituted "have", and

(c) for "the Post Office Act 1953" there shall be substituted "the Postal Services Act 2000".").

Page100, line 17, at end insert—
("Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
In section 371(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (re-direction of bankrupt's letters etc.)—

(a) for "the Post Office" there shall he substituted "a postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000)",

1145

(b) for "the Post Office Act 1953" there shall be substituted "that Act"), and

(c) for "them" there shall be substituted "the operator concerned".").

Page 101, line 22, at end insert—

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47)
For paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (reservation for the Post Office etc.) there shall be substituted—
"7. The subject-matter of the Postal Services Act 2000.
This paragraph does not include financial assistance for the provision of services (other than postal services and services relating to postal or money orders) to be provided from public post offices.
In this paragraph "postal services" and "public post offices" have the same meanings as in the Postal Services Act 2000." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 75:
Page 102, line 19, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 135, subsection (1)(b) and the word immediately preceding it and subsections (2) and (3).").
Page 102, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 4, paragraph 21.").

Page 102, line 21, at end insert—

("1970 c. 44.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

In section 14, in subsection (1), the words ", the Post Office Users' Councils" and subsection (2).")

Page 102, line 38, column 3, leave out ("Section") and insert ("to").

Page 102, line 44, at end insert—

("1983 c. 20.

Mental Health Act 1983

In section 134(9), the words from "and the provisions" to the end.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127 [Modifications of local enactments etc.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 75, line 22, leave out from ("such") to end of line 24 and insert ("supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in relation to local enactments as he considers necessary or expedient for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act or for giving full effect to this Act or any such provision.
( ) The power conferred by subsection (1) (including that power as extended by section 121) may, in particular, be exercised by modifying any local enactment or any instrument or other document which is not an Act.
( ) No other provision of this Act restricts the power conferred by subsection (1).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [Commencement]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78:
Page 75, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("to")
Page 75, line 40, at end insert ("or different areas").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 76, line 5, after (" 126(1)") insert ("to (1B)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 4) Order 2000
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this debate concerns the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 4) Order 2000. Like most Scotland Act orders which have come before this House since last summer, this one is primarily a tidying exercise.
The context of the order is that Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act forms part of the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. It places restrictions on the extent to which certain legislation, including the Scotland Act itself, can be modified by the Scottish Parliament.
Section 30 of the Scotland Act provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the approval of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. That allows the boundary of legislative competence to be adjusted or clarified.
The purpose of the order is to clarify the boundary in respect of two matters: pensions and the Scottish Consolidated Fund. When the Scotland Act was drafted, the concept of pension sharing had not developed sufficiently to enable the Act to deal with it fully. The position is now settled following the passing of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. As a consequence, it has now become necessary to amend Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act to bring it into line.
General pensions law and, in particular, the law which deals with the sharing of rights under pension arrangements on divorce are reserved matters. Nothing in the order changes the extent of the reservation which is set out in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. This order is concerned with the complex rules in Schedule 4 which determine the extent to which the Scottish Parliament can amend rules of Scots private law even though they relate to reserved matters. Paragraph 2(1) states that an Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot amend the "law on reserved matters". That includes the aspects of pensions law reserved by Schedule 5. Sub-paragraph (3) relaxes this restriction for rules of Scots private law. Together with Section 29(4), this allows the Parliament to modify Scots private law as it applies to

1147
reserved matters, as long as the purpose of the provision is to make the law in question apply consistently to reserved and non-reserved areas.
However, certain rules of Scots private law are protected from amendment if they are
"special to a reserved matter"
or are listed in sub-paragraph (3). The order extends the list of protected provisions of Scots private law to include pensions obligations introduced by the 1999 Act.
Following the chain of exceptions to exceptions, the inclusion of the new entries to Schedule 4 ensures that no modification to these rules of Scots private law can be made by the Scottish Parliament. In practical terms, we do not expect the amendments made by this order to have any great effect. They do not change pensions law or Scots private law. Nor is it likely that the Scottish Parliament would wish to legislate in this area, which is already pretty well the preserve of the UK Parliament.
Schedule 4 was intended to cover pension sharing on divorce. The order simply ensures that its terms fit with the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, now that the concept has been firmed up.
The second aspect of the order relates to the Scottish consolidated fund. Under Schedule 4(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament cannot in general amend the Scotland Act. That is hardly a great surprise. However, it was recognised that there are some aspects of the Scotland Act that it makes sense to allow the Scottish Parliament to amend, so provision is made for this restriction to be relaxed in specified instances.
One instance is to allow the Scottish Parliament to modify some of the references to the Scottish consolidated fund. The purpose is to add one further type of provision to the areas that the Scottish Parliament may legislate to amend in the 1998 Act.
At present, and subject to certain exceptions, the Parliament can legislate to amend provisions in the Act that
"charge sums on the fund"
or
"require sums to be paid from or to the fund".
However, the Scottish Parliament cannot at present legislate to make amendments to the provisions of the Scotland Act that provide for expenditure to be "payable out of" the Scottish consolidated fund.
There are two provisions in the 1998 Act that provide for sums to be "payable out of" the Scottish consolidated fund, which the Scottish Parliament cannot amend. The first is Section 21(6), which provides that any expenses of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body shall be payable out of the fund. The second is Section 51(5), which, in effect, provides that the salaries and allowances of the Scottish Administration civil servants are payable out of the fund.
Some noble Lords may ask what the distinction is between sums "payable out of" and sums "charged on" the Scottish consolidated fund. The answer is that "charged on" means that money has to be paid out of the fund without any further approval, whereas "payable out of" means that money can be paid out of the fund only if the Scottish Parliament specifically agrees the expenditure, normally by its inclusion in a budget Act.
The upshot of all this is that under the current legislation, the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate to put in place alternative arrangements, such as having some part of the Administration staff or of the affairs of the Scottish Parliament corporate body funded directly from the proceeds of trading.
It was never intended that those parts of the Scotland Act should be put beyond the reach of the Scottish Parliament. The order will allow the Scottish Parliament to amend them if it wishes. This is purely a tidying exercise. There are no plans for the use of the new power, but the order will allow the Scottish Parliament greater flexibility for the future. As I said at the outset, this order is concerned more with good housekeeping than with constitutional policy. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support it.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cart vale.)
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I believe that this is the ninth time that we have been asked to approve a Scotland Act order. That is not a complaint.
The order makes two clarifying amendments, which it is not difficult to approve. It is right that any modification of the significant Schedule 4 should require the so-called type A procedure of approval by both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament and by the Scottish Parliament, but that highest level of scrutiny is here being applied to clarifications of two substantive elements of the schedule, rather than to substantive modifications.
I certainly approve of last year's extension of pension sharing on divorce into the law of Scotland and I understand the logic of expanding paragraph 2(3)(b) by two extra sentences to make it clear that the new elements of Scots law are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.
Similarly, Article 3 makes a slight increase in the powers of the Scottish Parliament. No one will be surprised to hear that I instantly approve of any such proposal. In this case, we are being asked to approve the opportunity for the Parliament to legislate changes to the way in which money may be paid out of the Scottish consolidated fund. It is curious that that modification is being proposed at this time, when the Scottish Executive has no plans to implement those soon to be acquired powers. However, that lack of pressing need suggests that the modification is pure in intent and is not being brought forward out of expediency.

1149
I have three quick observations to make about the Scottish devolutionary process and its relationship to this House. First, this House is not serving itself well in its legislative work for Scotland by the lack of awareness and availability of the Bills and Acts of the Scottish Parliament. I acknowledge that this is a new phenomenon, but we should be more familiar with what the Scottish Parliament is doing and how that may merge with legislation in Westminster. Perhaps the existence of the Parliament in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1972 is a precedent.
Secondly, this House should be made aware at least of Royal Assent being granted to an Act of the Scottish Parliament. I believe that there have been eight so far. Thirdly, I want to complain about the minimalist explanatory note attached to the draft order. Comprising four sentences, it compares unfavourably with the four pages issued to Members of the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive. My honourable friend Sir Robert Smith also raised that issue when the draft order was before the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
This Parliament must work hard to become the new Union Parliament and, in so doing, re-find its place in the evolving nature of the British Union.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, will be pleased to hear that I do not have much to say about the order. It is important that we are given an opportunity to study the orders arising from the Scotland Act through the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was complaining about that. I have taken advice from people who understand these matters and they seem to be satisfied that it was sensible.
I have a small interest in pension splitting on divorce, because I was responsible for the Green Paper and the subsequent White Paper that set the process in train. I am perfectly happy with the order. It would not have been sensible for Scotland to be left out on a limb. I hope that I do not embarrass the noble Baroness by saying that she has my support on the order.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, it is with great delight that I receive the support of both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I very much appreciate their welcome of this measure which, as I have said, is very much a tidying up exercise.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2000
7. 49 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committed].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order I shall also speak to the second order standing in my name on the Order Paper. These orders were laid before the House on 5th June. Both orders cease to have effect if they are not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament within 40 days of their being laid. I am seeking the approval of this House today. Approval was sought and granted in another place last week.
Under powers conferred by Section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2000 repeals Section 1 of the 2000 Act, thereby lifting the suspension of the operation of the devolved institutions.
Almost exactly one month ago, on 29th May, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland signed the restoration order which returned devolution to Northern Ireland, bringing about the end of the period of suspension. From midnight the members of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee automatically resumed their posts. Salaries and allowances were returned to their pre-suspension levels and all of the committees of the Assembly were once again able to meet.
The first plenary meeting of the Assembly was held the following week. These early meetings have shown that members are keen to get down to business, dealing with the real bread and butter issues which affect everyone in Northern Ireland including economic, social and regional development, health and education. The brief period of suspension has done nothing to diminish their energy or enthusiasm or their commitment to work diligently for the good of the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that this House will join me in wishing them every success, both now and in the future, in building the future prosperity of Northern Ireland for the good of all of its people.
The second order before this House, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2000, has been made by the Secretary of State to ensure that actions taken by him under powers granted to him during suspension by the Northern Ireland Act 2000, cannot be annulled or revoked by the Assembly. These actions would include, for example, the Secretary of State's determination to reduce salaries and allowances for the duration of the suspension period.
I by no means wish to suggest that Assembly members would have contemplated retrospectively awarding themselves full salaries and allowances for that period. However, it would be seriously remiss of any government not cover all eventualities in this way, under the law.
The modification order also ensures that orders in council made by the Secretary of State under the schedule to the 2000 Act during suspension are not affected by restoration. This ensures that the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 cannot be revised or annulled by the Assembly.
As noble Lords will no doubt keenly remember, this House approved the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999 in November of last year, bringing devolved government to Northern Ireland for the first time in almost 30 years.
It was a momentous occasion; namely, the return of power to the people of Northern Ireland. We all hoped and prayed that Northern Ireland was finally entering a new era of democratic and locally accountable devolved government, where disputes were aired in the debating chamber and not on the streets. But it was not to be, at least not yet. However, I do not believe that the optimism we felt at that time was misplaced.
We had come a very long way and the sight of historically opposed parties facing each other for the first time both across the Assembly chamber and across the Executive Committee table only served to underscore this. Indeed, the Assembly and Executive Committee quickly settled down to the serious business of government and showed early on that they were prepared to work together for the good of the community as a whole.
Devolution proved not only to be popular but also to be effective. It was consequently hugely disappointing for everyone to see the devolved institutions suspended so soon. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place stressed from the outset that the suspension of the institutions was a temporary measure only, designed to save them from a collapse which would have been far more damaging. He made clear that the Government's unswerving commitment would be to work to bring about the restoration of the institutions at the earliest possible opportunity and on a lasting basis and to tackle head on those issues which had led to the decline in confidence and consequent suspension in the first place. I am delighted to be before noble Lords today with these two orders to help this commitment to become a reality.
I believe that we have succeeded in returning confidence that devolution is here to stay and that we can move forward in implementing all the other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. Many people have worked tirelessly to bring this about. The Northern Ireland political parties and the two governments put in enormous time and effort to reach agreement on the way forward.
The personal involvement of the Taoiseach and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister demonstrated the importance that we and the Irish Government attach to securing the best outcome for the people of Northern Ireland. The Irish Government worked closely with us at every level throughout this process. Their commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and to implementing that political settlement is beyond doubt. Their contribution has been invaluable.
The determination of the pro-agreement parties to fulfil their commitments under the Good Friday Agreement has also been crucial in bringing about the right circumstances for the restoration of devolution. Throughout the process the pro-agreement parties maintained their commitment to forging a better future for Northern Ireland, to removing the guns from politics and establishing a lasting and peaceful political settlement for the people of Northern Ireland.
The commitment made by the IRA in its statement of 6th May to put its arms completely and verifiably beyond use was undoubtedly significant, as was the signalling of their good intent in offering an early confidence building measure. The House will be aware that this commitment to initiating confidence building has now been honoured.
On Sunday, President Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, appointed by the two governments as independent inspectors, reported to the Decommissioning Commission that they had successfully completed the initial inspection of several weapons dumps. They confirmed that they were shown a substantial quantity of IRA arms and explosives and they were able to verify that these weapons were safely stored and could not be used without their detection. I will repeat just one short significant quote from their report. It is that the confidence-building measure is,
"a genuine effort by the IRA to advance the peace process".
Cyril Ramaphosa and President Ahtisaari are wholly independent and highly respected. Their reputation is such that we cannot fail to recognise the significance of this statement and take great encouragement from it. That said, I do not pretend that this is the end of the process. The confidence-building measure is no substitute for decommissioning. The IRA has promised to initiate a process of putting IRA weapons completely and verifiably beyond use and as a start to the decommissioning process it has now re-engaged with the Decommissioning Commission.
The signs are good. These first steps are encouraging and significant. However, we cannot afford to become complacent. The removal of all arms and explosives from Northern Ireland for good is of paramount importance to this Government and will remain so. Nevertheless, it is clear that we now have words and deeds to illustrate the IRA's commitment to peaceful means and to putting their arms beyond use. In turn, the two governments have made a commitment that the agreement will be implemented in full and we are moving as fast as we can to achieve that.
The draft orders before the House today represent a triumph of democratic politics over the politics of fear, violence and intimidation. But there will be more hard work ahead. Of course there will be arguments and disputes between the parties in the Assembly but that is the stuff of politics. A debating chamber or committee room, as this House knows, is precisely the place where such disputes should take place.
More seriously, just last week we had further evidence of the continuing threat from dissident Republican terrorists. The UFF statement showed that at least one of the loyalist ceasefires cannot be taken for

1153
granted, and we are already experiencing a rise in tension as the marching season begins. Members of the House will agree with me that violence, from either side, will achieve nothing: only politics works.
The Good Friday Agreement and devolution have shown that it is possible for all shades of political opinion to work together to forge a better future for all of the people of Northern Ireland. Political leaders in Northern Ireland are committed to this, and so is the Government. That is why these orders are important.
Restoration of the devolved institutions promises a lasting political settlement for Northern Ireland based on the principles set out in the Good Friday Agreement; consent, equality and parity of esteem. I commend these orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, as regards the first order, it is most welcome: the second is most prudent. I associate myself with all the remarks that the Minister expressed.
8 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall save my fire for the Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, but I have three points to raise now. When we come to Second Reading I would like an explanation of the statement made by the two special representatives whom the Minister has mentioned. They said that they had ensured that weapons and explosives could not be used without their detection. Who are "they", the inspectors or the IRA? If they are the former, how could they ensure that? Did they place devices? No doubt, we shall be told that those are deeply secret matters, to be revealed only, if at all, to the de Chastelain commission.
As I know of no evidence that either of the inspectors has any military experience, it is not unreasonable to inquire how they—if "they" means the inspectors— were able to assess the quality and state of the arms, and yet more impressive, to ensure that they cannot be used without detection. If "they" means the Provisional IRA, I am less reassured. Presumably, Mr Galvin, who has recently addressed a dissident splinter group of the IRA in Northern Ireland, and his audience will not be able mysteriously to acquire some of the IRA's remaining dumps, the ones that the inspectors did not see.
I have two other points. The first is to establish whether it is explicitly accepted that after this "confidence building measure", which I nevertheless welcome, we cannot expect the IRA to proceed with any actual decommissioning until Her Majesty's Government have delivered the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and withdrawn a substantial further number of troops. It would be nice to know whether there is an implicit, underlying understanding of that sort.
1154
Even the Patten report, in theory, accepted that the implementation of its salient recommendations, in the Belfast agreement, was intended to take place only when the security situation had changed significantly and that it was intended to regulate policing in a peaceful society. I hope that that will be remembered when we come to be asked to implement the Bill, although I recognise that naturally the legislation has to be agreed. However, timing is a separate issue.
Well before then, I hope that we shall have been told what is the Government's notion of generous severance pay. The exchange earlier today on the issue of pensions and compensation did not encourage me. If there is to be a fresh start, surely it should be on the basis of a generous and fair settlement of the debts of the past. Not a few of the RUC officers who were murdered were very young men—perhaps 24 or 26 years-old. They had had no time to build up a serious pension. Their wives and children live on to a life of poverty and trauma, as do many of the disabled who survived. I hope that the Treasury is making provision for a proper settlement and that it will not conclude that nothing can be done because it has not been included in the spending round.
Meanwhile, I am glad that the Assembly is back at work. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to suspend it when he did. I also believe that we should not have seen the IRA make the gestures that it has made without his firm readiness to call their bluff.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these orders before the House. It is worth reflecting that when David Trimble took the courageous decision last November to enter the Northern Ireland Executive, and to sit in government with Sinn Fein, he did so on the clear understanding that decommissioning would soon follow. He made it clear at the time that without decommissioning it would be impossible to sustain the Executive beyond February.
Regrettably, decommissioning did not follow. As General de Chastelain's report said, not only had no decommissioning taken place by the end of January, but there was no prospect of any taking place in the near future, despite the clear commitment in the Belfast agreement for decommissioning to have been completed by 22nd May 2000. On that basis the Secretary of State had no choice but to face the collapse of the Executive, with little prospect of it coming back, or to suspend the institutions in the hope that sufficient confidence could be established to enable them to be restored in the future.
That is why we had no hesitation in supporting the Government on the Northern Ireland Bill when it was brought before Parliament in February, giving the Secretary of State the power to suspend and why we were convinced, at that time, that the Secretary of State was absolutely correct to suspend the institutions and re-impose direct rule on 11th February. We always hoped that the renewal of direct rule would be short-lived. It is a profoundly regrettable and undemocratic way of governing Northern Ireland. The first time I said that was in my maiden speech about five years ago.

1155
Before devolved government could be restored there had to be assurances, or at the very least confidence within the unionist community, that Sinn Fein/IRA were at long last to deliver on their obligations under the Belfast agreement to decommission their illegally-held arms and explosives. In that context, the IRA's statement of 6th May marked a significant development. I believe for the first time in the history of the IRA it committed itself to a process that would lead to its arms being put "completely and verifiably beyond use". They also committed themselves to restoring their links with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning headed by General de Chastelain and they promised, as a confidence building measure, to open up some arms dumps for inspection by independent third parties.
While, as I have said, that was significant, the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionists sought certain assurances before Mr Trimble and his colleagues could return to the Executive. Specifically for us, those included, first, a guarantee from the Secretary of State that no deals had been done with any of the parties or with Dublin that in the event of another default by the IRA he would not use the power to suspend the institutions. In our view, that power is essential for it remains fundamentally wrong to expect democrats to sit in government with representatives of a fully-armed terrorist organisation for anything other than a transitional period. Secondly, they included an assurance that the Union flag would be the only flag flown from government buildings on appointed days and that the Secretary of State would, for all practical purposes, be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, and crucially, an assurance was sought that the opening up of arms dumps was only a first step and that the decommissioning of illegal arms and explosives must follow. We were pleased that the Prime Minister gave such a commitment in the other place on 17th May.
With those assurances, we supported Mr Trimble in his decision to ask the Ulster Unionist Council to endorse a return to the Executive at the meeting in Belfast on 27th May. The council backed him, and therefore the Secretary of State was able to make the restoration order that we are now debating.
Welcome as the restoration of devolved government is, it is vital that we do not forget that the Ulster Unionist Council backed Mr Trimble by only the narrowest of margins—53 per cent to 47 per cent. The closeness of the vote reflects anxieties that are prevalent throughout the unionist community in Northern Ireland today, in particular at the opening of the marching season. I was there yesterday and there is a great deal of sensitivity, cautious worry and concern. Many people see a process in which for unionists it has been all take and no give by republicans. They see wicked and evil terrorists released from prison early; they see the RUC stripped of its name and symbols; and they see members of Sinn Fein in government without even a start to any IRA decommissioning. As Mr Trimble has said, the Ulster Unionists, in backing a return to devolved government, have stretched themselves to the limit.
1156
They can literally go no further. It is now more vital than ever, if the process is to succeed and as we all hope, the Belfast agreement is to be implemented in full, that republicans deliver.
In that context the announcement on Monday that the IRA had opened up one of its dumps for inspection by Mr Ramaphosa and Mr Ahtisaari was encouraging. But, as the Prime Minister has rightly pointed out, on its own that is not enough. Decommissioning must follow. Arms must be put completely and verifiably beyond use. We all hope that that will happen. We all hope that devolution works. But unless actual decommissioning begins to happen, then welcome as this order is, I fear that it may not be too long before we are again debating a suspension of devolved government and the renewal of direct rule. That would be a tragedy for Northern Ireland. It would be a tragedy for all the people in Northern Ireland and it would put to waste the huge amount of time, patience and loss of life that has been expended on what is known as the Northern Ireland problem. But if it does not happen, there will be no doubt as to who is to blame. I have no problems in supporting the Minister in this order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for these orders from all sides of the House. Perhaps I can deal with the three specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
First, the noble Baroness sought an explanation of some of the comments made by President Ahtisaari and Mr Ramaphosa. They confirmed, first, that weapons and explosives are safely and adequately stored; secondly, that the bunkers will be sealed and the weapons cannot be used without the knowledge of the two independent assessors; thirdly, arrangements will be made for inspection every few months. I cannot go into more precise details, nor would I want to; it would be a standing invitation to dissident groups. The last thing anybody wants is for weapons to fall into the wrong hands. I did not understand the noble Baroness to be pressing me, at least at this stage; she said she was saving her fire for the Patten Bill. Therefore I shall neither go any further nor give any undertaking to write.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked whether there was any underlying understanding or arrangement that no further decommissioning would take place until the Patten Bill was passed and there had been a further reduction in troop levels in Northern Ireland. There is no such understanding. There is no understanding connecting the Patten Bill or troop reductions and further steps in relation to decommissioning. The decommissioning process is back on track. The IRA has resumed contact with the independent International Commission on Decommissioning. It is possible to say that it will set out the modalities, including the timetable. But I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no undertaking on the lines she indicated.
Finally, the noble Baroness referred to the position of a number of members of the RUC who died at a particularly young age as a result of the terrorist

1157
activity as they were fighting during the time of the troubles. She hoped that there would be proper compensation and severance pay. In fact, coincidentally, there was a Question about that earlier in the day and I dealt in some detail with those issues.
I indicated that there was no present proposal to review either the levels of pension or levels of compensation. But I referred to the fact that the Patten report recommended that a fund be set up. The Government accept that recommendation and that fund will be available by the spring of next year. I cannot say how it will be dealt with, but we shall be addressing the position of the widows and disabled who have been affected by terrorism.
I hope that answers all the questions. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2000
8.13 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2000
8.14 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Paragraph 1(1) of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000.
The purpose of the draft order is to make the bodies listed in the schedule "public authorities" for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These public authorities will be subject to the statutory duties set out in Section 75(1) and (2) of the Act requiring them to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between specific groups.
Equality of opportunity and treatment are crucial for civilised society and they are values that the United Kingdom holds dear. The House is aware that these are issues that are of particular importance in the context of Northern Ireland and that the promotion of
1158
equality was at the very heart of the Good Friday agreement. In the agreement, the parties affirmed their commitment to,
"the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community … in particular … the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".
The Good Friday agreement laid the foundations for a new dispensation based on respect for rights and the principle of equality. This Government are committed to ensuring the full implementation of the agreement. This order is another step in that important process.
Section 75(1) of the Northern Ireland Act requires all public authorities to,
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—

"(a) between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;

"(b) between men and women generally;

"(c) between persons with a disability and persons without; and

"(d) between persons with dependants and persons without".

In addition, and without prejudice to those obligations, public authorities are required under Section 75(2) to,
"have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
Public authorities are required to produce a plan— or equality scheme—that sets out how they will fulfil those duties. The schemes will cover the full range of the organisation's function in Northern Ireland, including arrangements for policy appraisal; public consultation; public access to information and services; monitoring; and timetables. Those schemes will be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval.
The Equality Commission will advise on, validate and monitor the Section 75 statutory obligation and will investigate complaints of default. Under Section 75(3)(b) and (c), a range of bodies are automatically brought within the definition of public authority—all bodies that are subject to investigation by either the Northern Ireland Ombudsman or the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. However, the Act also provides the power for the Secretary of State to designate other organisations as public authorities for the purposes of Section 75.
This order is the first designation order made under this power. It covers mainly Whitehall departments (including the Northern Ireland Office) and other UK-wide bodies—like certain of the lottery distributors— that carry out functions in Northern Ireland. The list is not exhaustive but represents the first tranche of additional public authorities. We intend that the statutory duty should, in time, embrace as many bodies as possible.
In the weeks and months ahead we will continue our consultation with the commission to consider what other bodies might need to be designated. Further orders will be made as required. We want to build a society free from unfair discrimination, where the

1159
active promotion of equality and good relations is seen as an integral part of public life. Section 75 laid the foundations for that goal and I am pleased to be able to extend its reach to these further organisations.
I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in welcoming this order I have to say to the Minister that the initial list is rather parsimonious. I welcome the fact that there will be additions made in the course of time. I should like to ask when the second tranche will appear. As he said in his contextual remarks, in Northern Ireland it is particularly important for equality and rights to be maintained.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, on this occasion I support the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and declare a small interest in that the chairman of the Northern Ireland Equality Commission is well known to me. I have been lobbied, as I believe have the Government, to broaden the list. I am not saying that I have any great desire for that myself and I am not pressing the
1160
Government in any way. I am stating what it is my duty to state from these Benches; that is, that the community and the commission concerned are not totally happy with the situation at the moment. But I support the order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support provided from all sides of the House. I was asked when the second tranche will be designated. The answer is as soon as possible, probably some time in the autumn. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Lord Levy: Visit to Syria
  Lord Levy: Visit to Syria
  Demining Vehicle Export Licence
  Demining Vehicle Export Licence
  Sierra Leone Forces: Arms Supply
  Sierra Leone Forces: Arms Supply
  Austria and the UN
  Austria and the UN
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Zimbabwe: Land Reform and Compensation
  Zimbabwe: Land Reform and Compensation
  UK Residents Non-domiciled for Tax Purposes
  UK Residents Non-domiciled for Tax Purposes
  Central Government Audit and Accountability Steering Group
  Central Government Audit and Accountability Steering Group
  Licensing Hours and Alcohol-related Crime
  Licensing Hours and Alcohol-related Crime
  R v Weir: Subsequent Action
  R v Weir: Subsequent Action
  Forced Marriage Working Party
  Forced Marriage Working Party
  CPS: Staff Attitudes and Stress
  CPS: Staff Attitudes and Stress
  Millennium Dome: Discount Packages
  Millennium Dome: Discount Packages
  Northern Ireland Office: Use of Cars
  Northern Ireland Office: Use of Cars
  Northern Ireland: Hospital Waiting Lists
  Northern Ireland: Hospital Waiting Lists
  Better Regulation Task Force: Chairmanship of Lord Haskins
  Better Regulation Task Force: Chairmanship of Lord Haskins
  Millennium Dome Business Plan
  Millennium Dome Business Plan
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Sierra Leone: Requests for Arms and Ammunition
  Sierra Leone: Requests for Arms and Ammunition
  Parcelforce: International Export Shipments
  Parcelforce: International Export Shipments
  E-commerce and Changes to the Brussels Convention
  E-commerce and Changes to the Brussels Convention
  Iraq: Applications for Essential Medical Equipment
  Iraq: Applications for Essential Medical Equipment
  European Single Sky
  European Single Sky
  European Car Free Day
  European Car Free Day
  ORR and sSRA: Discounted Rail Travel
  ORR and sSRA: Discounted Rail Travel
  Disabled People: Access to the Built Environment
  Disabled People: Access to the Built Environment
  Outdoor Advertisement Control
  Outdoor Advertisement Control
  London Mayor and Assembly Elections
  London Mayor and Assembly Elections
  Access Funds and Hardship Loans Review
  Access Funds and Hardship Loans Review
  Asian Longhorn Beetle
  Asian Longhorn Beetle
  International Whaling Commission: UK Position
  International Whaling Commission: UK Position
  BSE
  BSE
  Millennium Dome Additional Funding: Direction
  Millennium Dome Additional Funding: Direction
  Advisory Board on Family Law: Annual Report
  Advisory Board on Family Law: Annual Report
  Chester: New County Court House
  Chester: New County Court House
  Passport Agency Quinquennial Review
  Passport Agency Quinquennial Review
  Human Rights Act 1998: Statements of Compatibility
  Human Rights Act 1998: Statements of Compatibility
  EU Tobacco Hectarages and Subsidy Payments
  EU Tobacco Hectarages and Subsidy Payments
  Illegal Fishing: Prevention
  Illegal Fishing: Prevention
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Research Council, 15 June
  Research Council, 15 June
  Late Payment of Commercial Debt
  Late Payment of Commercial Debt
  New Deal Start-ups
  New Deal Start-ups
  School ICT Funding and Language Laboratories
  School ICT Funding and Language Laboratories
  Learning and Skills Councils: Funding of Objective 3 Activities
  Learning and Skills Councils: Funding of Objective 3 Activities
  New Deal Participants: Sanctions
  New Deal Participants: Sanctions
  Welfare: Rights and Responsibilities
  Welfare: Rights and Responsibilities
  South Downs: Expenditure Plans
  South Downs: Expenditure Plans
  Chinook Helicopter Accident
  Chinook Helicopter Accident
  Military Wrecks
  Military Wrecks

  Assisted Area Status, Scotland
  The Earl of Mar and Katie
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will give urgent consideration to the re-inclusion of Carsebridge, Alloa, as an Assisted Area for Regional Selective Assistance. [HL2935]

  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
  Careful consideration has been given to the Assisted Area map for the whole of Scotland and the Government have listened carefully to all representations that have been made. The European Commission raised a number of concerns that required changes to the original proposal. The most recent proposal, published on 10 April 2000, gives Scotland a population coverage of 48 per cent, down by only 1 per cent from the original proposal. I am sure that the final outcome will be good for Scotland.

  House Prices
  House Prices

  Pensions: Over-eighties Addition
  Baroness Jeger
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the age addition of 25 pence which was awarded to the over-eighties in 1971 remains at 25 pence; and what is now the comparative purchasing power of that 25 pence. [HL2962]
  WA90
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
  Since it was introduced, no government have increased age addition on the basic state pension that is paid to those aged 80 or over.

  Our priority is to help the poorest pensioners and to help all pensioner households. That is why we have introduced a comprehensive strategy to tackle pensioner poverty. We have introduced the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments, reduced VAT on fuel, restored free eye test, allocated extra money to improve cataract services and cardiac care, and reduced income tax. We have also introduced the home energy efficiency scheme and will be providing free TV licences for the over 75s, concessionary bus fares, pensioner credit and doubling the capital limits in minimum income guarantee.

  We are spending an extra £6.5 billion on pensioner incomes in this Parliament.

  The comparative purchasing power of £0.25p in May 1971 is £0.029p in May 2000.

  Notes:

  (1) The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used, as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  (2) Figures are unrounded.